    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING U.S.
                          CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE
                         DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 10, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-85

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    55-395                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
    ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
        Samoa                            DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           RON PAUL, Texas
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            TED POE, Texas
    BARBARA LEE, California              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada              GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
    JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    JIM COSTA, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
    RON KLEIN, Florida
    VACANTUntil 5/5/10 deg.
                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
               Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
             Jasmeet Ahuja, Professional Staff Member deg.
           David Fite, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
              Jessica Lee, Professional Staff Member deg.
         Alan Makovsky, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
       Pearl Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
         Peter Quilter, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
          Edmund Rice, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
          Daniel Silverberg, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
             Amanda Sloat, Professional Staff Member deg.
                    Kristin Wells, Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
       Shanna Winters, General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor
            Brent Woolfork, Professional Staff Member deg.
             Robert Marcus, Professional Staff Member deg.
         Diana Ohlbaum, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
          Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer deg.
       Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator
                         Riley Moore, Deputy Clerk deg.

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Nicole Wong, Esq., Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
      Google, Inc....................................................     9
    Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon, Visiting Fellow, Center for Information
      Technology Policy, Princeton University, Cofounder of Global
      Voices Online..................................................    19
    Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and
      Security Review Commission.....................................    32
    Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II, President and CEO, Business Software
      Alliance.......................................................    45

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Nicole Wong, Esq.: Prepared statement............................    12
    Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon: Prepared statement........................    21
    Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................    34
    Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II: Prepared statement..................    48
    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey: Letter from Google, NGO Joint
      Statement in Support of H.R. 2271 and letter from Freedom House    81

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    92
    Hearing minutes..................................................    93
    The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
      Affairs: Prepared statement....................................    95
    The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
      from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
      Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement.........    97
    The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Missouri: Prepared statement......................   100
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement.................   101
    The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas: Prepared statement.............................   102
    Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee,
      a Representative in Congress from the State of California......   103
    Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-
      Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida........................................................   114
    Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Joseph
      Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
      York...........................................................   115
    Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
      Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................   116
    Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Michael T.
      McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas...   117

    THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING U.S. CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE
                         DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Berman. The committee will come to order. Just for
    the three colleagues of mine who are here now, I would like to
    just  deg.remind you that at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow
    morning  deg.I will be hosting a meeting of the
    Foreign Assistance Reform Working Group in room 2255, and I
    encourage my colleagues to come. Next week at 9:30 a.m. we will
    have what promises to be a very interesting hearing on the
    European security architecture and the transatlantic security
    architecture.
        And sometime before the spring recess I hope to hold a
    markup to consider Mr. Smith's International Megan's Law
    legislation and possibly a bill on science diplomacy which Mr.
    Fortenberry and I will introduce today.
        After Mr. Smith and I make our opening remarks, other
    members will have the opportunity to make 1-minute statements
    if they wish to do so. Members are also welcome to place
    written statements in the record. In fact, for the members who
    are here now, I think--and given that the Afghanistan
    legislation is not going to be on until later--for the members
    who are here at the time of the gavel, I think we will allow 2-
    minute opening statements by them.
        Today's hearing: In a recent speech on 21st-century
    statecraft, Secretary Clinton said the State Department is
    realigning its policies and priorities to harness and promote
    the power of the latest communication tools. Her remarks
    illustrate the fact that new means of electronic communication
    have created both opportunities and challenges for those who
    formulate our national security and foreign policy.
        While many congressional committees have looked at the
    issues of human rights, defense, and trade in connection with
    the Internet, it is time for us to consider a comprehensive
    approach to the increased worldwide use of cyber technology.
        This hearing will address what we are calling the ``Google
    Predicament'' because Google's experience over the past couple
    of months highlights the challenges in developing a cyber-
    specific foreign policy. The Internet is a useful tool to
    promote freedom and trade, but in some places it also serves as
    a means of censorship. It is a boon for U.S. business but also
    a source of great vulnerability with respect to U.S. national
    security. Reconciling these conflicting policy challenges is a
    key mission for the administration and, I believe, for this
    Sub deg.committee.
        The latest communication technologies are being put to use
    to advance democracy and protect human rights. Widespread use
    of Twitter overcame the Iranian regime's ban on media coverage
    of last summer's election results and their aftermath. And a
    graphic video posted on YouTube of a young Iranian woman who
    was shot and killed during a protest galvanized world opinion,
    as it gave people an unvarnished look at the crackdown.
        The administration acknowledged the power of these
    communication tools just this past Monday by granting a general
    license for the transfer of social networking software to Iran
    and other repressive nations. This is an important and good
    step that will foster greater freedom of expression. But
    paradoxically, cyber technology also serves as a weapon of
    choice for repressive regimes. Under our former chairman, Tom
    Lantos, this committee examined closely how American companies,
    however passively, can and do facilitate censorship. Our
    colleague Chris Smith has also been very active in advancing
    the discussion of this subject.
        The notion that American companies can heedlessly supply
    their software, routers, and information to governments that
    use them for repressive purposes is untenable. But preventing
    companies from engaging in trade with countries ruled by those
    repressive governments is equally untenable, for it would deny
    billions of people the ability to access the very information
    needed to support their resistance.
        When it comes to human rights, there must be a way to
    balance the benefits of cyber technology with its very real
    potential harms. A voluntary organization known as the Global
    Network Initiative, made up of human rights organizations and
    various companies, works directly on this issue. Regrettably,
    many companies have failed to join. As a result, we may
    consider legislation to address this issue. Providers of
    technology need to step up.
        American companies did just that last year when Beijing
    mandated installation of the Green Dam-Youth Escort Software on
    all computers sold in China. This software program would have
    blocked Internet searches on politically sensitive subjects and
    made computers more vulnerable to hackers. Companies persuaded
    the United States Government to protest the Green Dam
    requirement because it violated free trade obligations under
    WTO rules. We need to see that kind of public-private
    partnership at work across the board on issues involving cyber
    security and Internet freedom.
        It is also very much in the interest of U.S. business to
    make such a partnership work. Brand integrity of U.S. entities
    is at stake when someone hacks into and alters or steals the
    intellectual property of U.S. companies such as Google. Melissa
    Hathaway, author of President Obama's recent ``Cyberspace
    Policy Review,'' suggests that the government may need to
    retool our intelligence and diplomatic communities to protect
    U.S. intellectual property abroad.
        Finally, and perhaps most troubling, is the way cyber
    technology can be exploited to undermine our own security. Make
    no mistake: Not only are sophisticated and network-secure
    companies like Google vulnerable to attack from foreign
    countries, but the entire U.S. network faces assault on a daily
    basis. As recently noted by the  deg.Deputy Defense
    Secretary Lynn, an adversarial nation could deploy hackers to
    take down U.S. financial systems, communications and
    infrastructure at a cost far below that of building a trillion-
    dollar fleet of jet fighters or an aircraft carrier.
        China's alleged hacking of Google and subsequent reports
    that Google is partnering with the National Security Agency to
    analyze the attack raise some relevant questions for this
    committee: Does an unauthorized electronic intrusion constitute
    a violation of national sovereignty, equivalent to a physical
    trespass onto U.S. territory--and if so, what is the
    appropriate response?
        We also need to consider the foreign policy implications of
    offensive U.S. capabilities. The United States has much to lose
    from a lawless cyberspace where countries can attack each other
    at will and engage in a perennial low-intensity cyber conflict.
        We look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
    simultaneously promote Internet freedom and deprive repressive
    regimes of the tools of cyber-repression; and how we can
    promote the global diffusion of the Internet while also
    protecting ourselves from cyber attack.
        But before we hear from our witnesses, first let me turn to
    our esteemed colleague, Chris Smith--designated by the ranking
    member to serve in her stead today--for any opening remarks
    that he may wish to make.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank
    you for convening this very timely and very important hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, Reporters Without Borders documents
    that at least 120 people are currently imprisoned for online
    postings, that is the ones we know of, 72 of them in China
    alone, but also large numbers in Iran and Vietnam. In 2005, I
    had a meeting in a restaurant in Hanoi with Vu Thuy Ha, the
    wife of Dr. Pham Hong Son, who had e-mailed an article entitled
    ``What is Democracy?,'' downloaded from U.S. Embassy in Hanoi's
    Web site.
        He sent it to his friends. The Vietnamese Internet police
    called this espionage and punished him with a very long prison
    term. While Vu and I talked, police thugs conspicuously sat at
    the next table--there were three of them--scowled at her, took
    her picture, I took theirs, and they made a number of
    threatening gestures. She was very fearful. Many people in this
    room will remember the groundbreaking hearings this committee
    held on Internet freedom.
        I chaired two of those in 2006, I chaired an 8-hour hearing
    on the Internet in China, which we subtitled ``A Tool for
    Freedom or Suppression.'' The hearing responded to Yahoo's
    cooperation with Chinese Internet police in tracking down
    journalist Shi Tao, who is still serving a 10-year prison term
    for disclosing state secrets--that is, he e-mailed to the
    United States Chinese Government orders on not reporting on the
    15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre--he sent that
    to an NGO in New York.
        In 2007, Tom Lantos followed up with a hearing on Shi Tao
    and others in which Yahoo's Jerry Yang testified to the
    committee while Shi Tao's mother sat right behind him in the
    audience. At the end of the hearing, Jerry Yang met with Shi
    Tao's mother, and since then Yahoo has undertaken to do what it
    can to compensate some of the families like Shi Tao's and
    others imprisoned because of their Internet work. But the
    victims of the growing global assault on Internet freedom are
    also entire peoples denied their right to free expression,
    often self-censoring out of fear, and denied access to
    information.
        These include the Chinese, Iranian, Belarusian, Cuban,
    Burmese, Egyptian, North Korean, Saudi Arabians, Syrian,
    Tunisian, Turkmen, and Uzbek peoples, who live under
    governments which Reporters Without Borders classifies as the
    twelve worst enemies of the Internet. Currently, over three
    dozen countries routinely censor the Internet. This number is
    growing. And in recent years they have developed increasingly
    sophisticated tools for blocking, filtering, and surveilling
    the Internet. They exchange technologies and tactics, which are
    often modeled on the Chinese Government's Great Firewall of
    China.
        Yet we have also learned some positive lessons from 2006.
    We have seen that many U.S. IT companies really want to do the
    right thing. Since 2006, Yahoo has established much stricter
    policies governing its interactions with repressive
    governments, working to keep personally identifying information
    out of their hands. When it went into Vietnam, for example,
    Yahoo stored personally identifiable information in Singapore,
    out of reach of the government secret police.
        Google's transformation has even been more remarkable.
    Since 2006, I have been meeting with Google executives and they
    have known for some time that the theory that their mere
    presence in the Chinese market would somehow liberalize China
    or at least justify their willingness to censor searches has
    proven mistaken, and that China was growing more repressive.
    Google's statement in January that it ``is no longer willing to
    continue censoring results on its Chinese search engine'' was
    remarkable and it was thrilling. Certainly the hearts of
    millions of Chinese human rights activists and political
    dissidents were equally happy.
        Google deserves to be praised for this decision. It is a
    blow against the cynical silence of so many about the Chinese
    Government's human rights abuses, a blast of honesty and
    courage from which we can all draw inspiration. Mr. Chairman, I
    believe Google's making a principled and public commitment to
    do the right thing and stop censoring, combined with its
    willingness to spend some time in patient dialogue with the
    Chinese Government, giving that government every chance to do
    the right thing as well, is a model of how IT companies can
    deal with repressive regimes.
        But I also believe the model can be improved upon. Google's
    recent difficulties in China make it even more clear, clearer
    than ever, that however well intentioned American IT companies
    are, they are not powerful enough to stand up to a repressive
    government, particularly the likes of China. Without U.S.
    Government support and backing, they are inevitably forced to
    play a role in the repressive government censorship and
    surveillance.
        But the Global Online Freedom Act, legislation I crafted in
    '06 and reintroduced this Congress, will give American IT
    companies the U.S. Government backup they need to negotiate
    with repressive governments. I would remind my colleagues it
    was patterned after three major initiatives, the International
    Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act of 2000, which I authored, and the Foreign
    Corrupt Practices Act, which in the late '70s, many people said
    that it disadvantaged U.S. companies. Yet, it really became the
    model--not just for the U.S. but for the world--on not
    providing bribes and other such ways of doing business all over
    the world.
        It is the standard, it is a model, and is a minimum
    standard that needs to be followed now on the Internet side.
    Because of time, I will not go through all of the various
    provisions of the Global Online Freedom Act, but I would ask my
    colleagues to take a good hard look at it. I think it is an
    idea whose time has come in terms of really setting at least a
    minimal standard, a floor if you will, to protect nonviolent
    political speech and nonviolent religious speech; and that is
    the aim of the legislation.
        It does it in two very simple ways: By requiring a full
    disclosure of what it is that is being censored, and secondly,
    by ensuring that personally identifiable information is put out
    of reach of Internet restricting countries, a designation that
    would be conferred on those countries after due diligence and
    analysis by an office that would be created within the
    Department of State. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for again
    calling this hearing. We need to move on this and move quickly.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. Time of the gentleman has expired. Under
    the unanimous consent edict or whatever, the members who were
    here at the time, if they wish to, can be recognized for up to
    2 minutes. Other members who wish to make opening statements
    for 1 minute. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, seeks
    recognition? The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. American policy is marked by perhaps a very
    aggressive military policy and a very passive approach to using
    our economic, technological, and diplomatic power. Keeping
    Google out of China is not the solution, in fact that may be
    what China is trying to achieve. We should instead have
    hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to developing the
    technology and putting out the contracts to develop the
    technology to punch a hole in the Great Wall of China and all
    the other barriers to the use of the Internet.
        Likewise, we should be aggressive in using our technology
    to take down terrorist sites around the world. But this isn't
    just an Internet issue, this is an overall economic issue. We
    have an enormous trade deficit with China because we open our
    markets to them and they figure out ways to close their market
    to us. Hacking is just one of many ways they do that. We have
    had hearings in our Subcommittee, deg. on Terrorism,
    Nonproliferation, deg. and Trade, in which business
    after business comes forward and talk about what they face when
    they try to export to China. The offsets, the criminality, the
    theft, the confiscation and our Government does nothing. As
    long as American policy is dominated by Wall Street and Wal-
    Mart, neither democracy nor America will be in the ascendancy.
    I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman has yielded back. Does the
    gentleman from California seek recognition?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes I do.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
    Rohrabacher, is recognized for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And I would like to
    identify myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sherman,
    who is again getting to the heart of the matter in many ways.
    Let us just note, in January of this year when Google announced
    its intention to stop censoring its search results in the
    People's Republic of China, I was very supportive and I was
    very complimentary of Google, and because that was in stark
    contrast to some of the other companies that were operating in
    China.
        Unfortunately, Google has yet to follow through on and to
    stop self-censoring. And, you know, our praise shouldn't be for
    an intent, our praise should be for accomplishing what has been
    set out, and I am very anxious today, Mr. Chairman, to hear the
    details about what is  deg.Google is planning to do,
    and there seems to be a contradictory position here between
    what their goal is and what they are actually doing as we
    speak. Let us note that the Internet is a powerful force in the
    world today, and I would suggest it can be used for positive
    things, it can be used to promote freedom and human dignity and
    information, the spread of information over a broad area, or it
    can be used for just the opposite, it could be used by tyrants
    and gangsters to oppress their own people.
        It behooves us, as people who believe in freedom and
    democracy, to stand with the people of China and to say that in
    this very important area of technology transforming our
    societies, that we will work with the people of China, not the
    Government of China, to see that this technology is used in a
    positive way and not a negative way. If, as Mr. Sherman says,
    if our corporations hold true to those values, we will work
    with those corporations. If the corporations that happen to be
    owned by Americans do not, we will be against them.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Who
    else seeks recognition for opening statements? The gentlelady
    from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 2 minutes.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick.
    China is a very desirable market, and that makes it that much
    more difficult for us and the corporations in China to take a
    principled stand against, well, our corporations to take a
    principled stand against China's cyber action and policies.
    That is very clear to us. But of course we must take a stand.
    And it would certainly be best, as Congressman Rohrabacher
    said, if the corporations and businesses in China and the
    United States would work out our differences and make this
    work. But if it can't, I support our chairman in saying that we
    will need to take action. So I am so anxious to hear today what
    our witnesses have to say because I bet you have some good
    ideas about this. And I would like to yield the rest of my time
    to Congresswoman Lee from California.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady yields 1 minute to the
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the
    gentlelady for yielding and just welcome our panelists and just
    say, you know, while these very powerful technologies have
    provided many opportunities to improve lives as well as
    strengthen international engagement and partnership, they have
    also opened doors for misuse or abuse by governments,
    businesses, and individuals. Adapting and planning for the
    current and anticipated impact of this technological
    transformation is really critical for us to ensure that we take
    a very proactive approach to fostering the flow of information,
    guarding our vital national security interests, and protecting
    individual freedoms and civil liberties for ours and for future
    generations. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    again the gentlelady for yielding, and welcome, look forward to
    your testimony.
        Chairman Berman. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Anyone
    else seek recognition for an opening statement? The gentleman
    from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, is recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was practicing
    law in about 1999, the assistant IT person at our firm handed
    me a piece of paper, he said, ``Google''--he had written it
    out--he said, ``Google, that is what you want to go search
    on.'' Now, like I suppose most people, I am frustrated by any
    other search engine, because they are not as fast and they are
    not as good as Google. So the thought of having a real Google
    and a fake Google, one that turns up all the results that the
    rest of the world can see, and one that turns up just what the
    Chinese Communist dictators want you to see, is just an amazing
    incongruity, it just doesn't make sense. And so I am so
    grateful for Google recognizing that and making the decision to
    move toward providing the people of China with the real Google,
    the real information that the rest of the world gets. That is
    the way it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, seeks recognition. The
    gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Crowley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I also want
    to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for organizing this
    hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses for their
    willingness to share their experiences. It is no secret that
    there are different opinions on doing business in China,
    especially when it comes to matters relating to freedom of
    expression. At the same time, we know that those with differing
    views are acting in the spirit as Confucius's famous saying
    goes, hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
    These issues, the security of the Internet, intellectual
    property, and indeed national security, go to the very core of
    our national interests. I look forward to hearing more from the
    witnesses on these important matters and this timely
    discussion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 20 seconds.
        Chairman Berman. Yes, that and what gets you a cup of
    coffee? The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized
    for 1 minute.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Information is power,
    and during the Cold War, radio free Europe in its broadcasts
    helped to spread untainted information that empowered people
    like Lech Walessa and Vaclav Havel. But today the means have
    changed, but the ability of information to undermine
    totalitarian regimes remains constant. The Internet has
    empowered new generations. You have the green movement in Iran
    that has utilized new technologies to disseminate information
    among dissidents, democracy advocates from China to Vietnam are
    blogging about freedom and about democracy. But I will close
    with this irony, and it is from the Washington Post. They wrote
    recently, ``China aims not just at eliminating the free speech
    and virtual free assembly inherent in the Internet, but at
    turning it into a weapon that can be used against democrats and
    against democratic societies.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady from California, Ambassador
    Watson, is recognized for 1 minute.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The Internet
    is an invaluable tool for expression of information and ideas.
    Not only does this Internet allow for speedy disbursal, but
    also reaches scores of people that was previously unimaginable.
    That is why I feel that Internet security and freedom are so
    important, and we must be able to protect our constituents and
    our Government agencies from unwarranted cyber attacks from
    international players such as China.
        Sites such as Twitter and YouTube have provided us with
    information about unjust acts all around the world, such as the
    recent videos of election day protests in Iran. These videos
    provide a window into the world that has previously been closed
    to us. For that reason, I believe that we must do all we can to
    protect the freedom of speech on the Internet. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. Time of the gentlelady is expired. Who
    else seeks recognition? The gentleman from New York, Mr.
    McMahon is recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join those who
    thank you for scheduling this hearing and having these
    witnesses come as well. I would just ask that the witnesses, as
    they address the issue of Internet freedom in China and report
    on what happened with Google and what is going forward, that
    they also keep in mind and speak about intellectual property
    rights and the fact that as we have freedom of information
    flowing we also respect the rights of those who create music,
    who create intellectual property, films and the like, because
    that has become a very valuable good or manufactured thing or
    commodity that America produces and yet our rights seem to be
    taken away by those who do that. So I would ask you to focus on
    that as well as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. And
    now we will--oh, the gentleman from New Jersey seeks
    recognition. Mr. Sires is recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I read this, you
    know, I am very concerned that the China model may become a
    model for the rest of the countries that want to stifle free
    information, and I think it is very important that the
    negotiations that are going on now do not become a model for
    all these other countries that want to stifle. I am thinking
    specifically of Cuba and North Korea. So, you know, you have
    got your hands full. And I just wanted to make that statement,
    I know I have a little time, but I will have questions and I
    want to thank you for being here and thank the chairman for
    holding this meeting. Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired, and
    now we are going to introduce and hear from our witnesses.
    Nicole Wong is deputy general counsel at Google, working
    primarily on the company's product and regulatory matters.
    Prior to joining Google, she was a partner at the law firm of
    Perkins Coie, where she represented traditional media and new
    media clients. Ms. Wong also taught media and Internet law
    courses as an adjunct professor at the University of California
    at Berkeley, Stanford University, and the University of San
    Francisco.
        Rebecca MacKinnon is a visiting fellow at Princeton
    University Center for Information Technology Policy, where she
    is working on a book about China, the Internet, and the future
    of freedom in the Internet age. She is a cofounder of the
    Global Voices Online, an Internet blogger's network, and a
    founding member of the Global Network Initiative, a multi-
    stakeholder initiative that promotes free expression and
    privacy around the world.
        Dr. Larry Wortzel, serves as a--am I pronouncing that
    right? Okay--commissioner on the congressionally-appointed
    U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Previously,
    Dr. Wortzel served as vice president for foreign policy and
    defense studies, and as director of the Asian Studies Center at
    the Heritage Foundation.
        And Robert Holleyman is president and CEO of the Business
    Software Alliance, an association of the world's leading
    developers of software, hardware, and Internet technologies.
    Prior to joining BSA in 1990, Mr. Holleyman spent 8 years on
    Capitol Hill as legislative director to former U.S. Senator
    Russell Long, and then as senior counsel for the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We are
    really very pleased that you folks would come. We apologize for
    that snow that put this hearing off until now, but all of you
    working out your schedules to join us today we are very
    grateful for. Ms. Wong, why don't you lead off?

       STATEMENT OF NICOLE WONG, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY
                     GENERAL COUNSEL, GOOGLE, INC.

        Ms. Wong. Thank you. Chairman Berman, Congressman Smith,
    and members of the committee, thank you for your continued
    attention on the issue of Internet freedom. I want to talk to
    you today about the importance of an open Internet. An open
    Internet is what allowed a national broadcaster in Venezuela to
    update daily newscasts on YouTube after Hugo Chavez revoked
    their broadcasting license because their opinions ran counter
    to his policies. An open Internet is what ensured the
    publication of blog reports, photos, and videos of hundreds of
    Burmese monks being beaten and killed in 2007 even after the
    government shut down the national media and kicked out foreign
    journalists.
        An open Internet is what brought the protests following the
    Presidential elections in Iran last summer to all of our
    attention, even after the government banned foreign
    journalists, shut down the national media, and disrupted
    Internet and cell phone service. But the continued power of
    this medium requires a commitment from citizens, companies, and
    governments alike. In the last few years, more than 25
    countries have blocked Google services, including YouTube and
    Blogger. The growing problem is consistent with Secretary
    Clinton's recent speech on Internet freedom when she cited
    cases from China to Tunisia to Uzbekistan to Vietnam.
        For example, our video service YouTube has been blocked in
    Turkey for 2 years now because of user videos that allegedly
    insulted Turkishness. In 2009, during elections in Pakistan,
    the Pakistani Government issued an order to all of its ISPs to
    block certain opposition videos on YouTube. And of course there
    is our experience in China, where the last year showed a
    measurable increase in censorship in every medium including the
    Internet.
        An open Internet, one that continues to fulfill the
    democratic function of giving voice to individuals,
    particularly those who speak in dissent, demands that each of
    us make the right choices to support a free and strong Internet
    and to resist government censorship and other acts to chill
    speech even when that decision is hard. As Google's deputy
    general counsel, part of my job is handling censorship demands
    from around the world guided by three principles: Maximizing
    access to information online, notifying users when information
    has been removed by government demand, and retaining our users'
    trust by protecting privacy and security.
        No examples received more attention than China in recent
    months. In mid December, we detected a highly sophisticated and
    targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure, originating
    from China with a primary but unsuccessful goal to access Gmail
    accounts. However, it soon became clear that what at first
    appeared to be solely a security incident was something quite
    different. Other companies from a range of businesses, finance,
    technology, media, and chemical, were similarly targeted.
        We discovered in our investigation that the accounts of
    dozens of Gmail users around the world who advocate for human
    rights in China appear to have been accessed by third parties.
    Let me be clear that this happened independent of the attack on
    Google, likely through fishing or malware placed on those
    users' computers. These circumstances, as well as attempts over
    the past year to limit free speech online, led us to conclude
    that we no longer feel comfortable censoring our search results
    in China. We are currently reviewing our business operations
    there.
        No particular industry, much less any single company, can
    tackle Internet censorship on its own. Concerted, collective
    action is needed to promote online free expression and reduce
    the impact of censorship. We are grateful for law makers, and
    in particular this committee's leadership, who have urged more
    companies to join the Global Network Initiative. As a platform
    for companies, human rights groups, investors, and academics,
    GNI members commit to standards that respect and protect user
    rights to privacy and freedom of expression. Additional
    corporate participation will help the GNI reach its full
    potential.
        Beyond the GNI, every one of us at the grass roots
    corporate and governmental level should make every effort to
    maximize access to information online. In particular,
    government can take some specific steps. First and foremost,
    the U.S. Government should promote Internet openness as a major
    plank for our foreign policy. The free flow of information is
    an important part of diplomacy, foreign assistance, and
    engagement on human rights. Second, Internet censorship should
    be part of our trade agenda because it has serious economic
    implications. It tilts the playing field toward domestic
    companies and reduces consumer choice. It affects not only U.S.
    and global Internet companies, but also hurts businesses in
    every sector that use the Internet to reach customers.
        Third, our Government and governments around the world
    should be transparent about demands to censor or request
    information about users or when a network comes under attack.
    This is a critical part of the democratic process, allowing
    citizens to hold their governments accountable. Finally, Google
    supports the commitment of Congress and the administration to
    provide funds to make sure people who need to access the
    Internet safely have the right training and tools. I want to
    thank each of you for your continued leadership in this fight
    against online censorship. We look forward to working with you
    to maximize access to information online and promote online
    free expression around the world.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]Wong
    statement deg.

        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much.
        Ms. MacKinnon?

    STATEMENT OF MS. REBECCA MACKINNON, VISITING FELLOW, CENTER FOR
    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, COFOUNDER
                        OF GLOBAL VOICES ONLINE

        Ms. Mackinnon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Smith, for
    the chance to testify today and for your leadership on this
    issue which has already begun to impact the behavior of a
    number of companies. After describing how authoritarianism is
    adapting to the Internet in ways that often involve companies,
    I will offer some policy recommendations. Regimes like China
    and Iran, and a growing list of others, usually start with the
    blocking of Web sites, but they also use a range of other
    tactics outlined in greater detail in my written testimony.
        They include cyber attacks against activist Web sites;
    deletion of online content by Internet companies at government
    request, which entails taking it off the Internet entirely.
    Surveillance is used in many countries that don't censor the
    Internet much if at all. In Egypt, for example, heavy
    surveillance of Internet users is justified as an anti-
    terrorism measure, but is also used to harass, identify, and
    persecute peaceful critics of the regime. And finally there is
    the use of law enforcement demands in countries where the
    definition of crime includes political speech, which means that
    companies end up assisting in the jailing and tracking of
    activists whether or not they had actually intended to do so at
    the outset when they entered a market.
        So what do we do? At the top of my list of recommendations
    is corporate responsibility. In the fall of 2008, Google along
    with Yahoo and Microsoft launched the Global Network
    Initiative, a code of conduct for free expression and privacy,
    in conjunction with human rights groups, investors, and
    academic researchers like myself. The GNI recognizes that no
    market is without political difficulties or ethical dilemmas.
    Every company, every product, and every market is different.
    Therefore, we believe in an approach that combines flexibility
    with accountability.
        Fundamentally, however, it is reasonable to expect that all
    companies in this sector should acknowledge and seek to
    mitigate the human rights risks associated with their
    businesses, just as they and other companies consider
    environmental risks and labor concerns. Next comes legislation.
    Law may in fact be needed if companies fail to take voluntary
    action. However, it is important that any law be sufficiently
    flexible and global in scope to avoid becoming quickly
    ineffective or even counterproductive due to rapid
    technological or geopolitical changes.
        Meanwhile, I recommend some immediate steps. First, private
    right of action. It should be easier for victims to take action
    in a U.S. court of law when companies assist regimes in
    violating their rights. Second, we need to incentivize private
    sector innovation that helps support Internet freedom. Third,
    we need to continue revising sanctions and export controls. We
    should make it harder for U.S. companies to sell products and
    services to regimes with a clear track record of suppressing
    peaceful political and religious speech.
        However, our laws should not, on the other hand, bar
    companies from serving those who are risking their lives to
    peacefully voice dissent. The Treasury Department took an
    important step this week in issuing export licenses for free
    services and software to people in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Other
    activists and places like Zimbabwe and Syria are still out in
    the cold, and there remains the issue of paid services and
    equipment for individual use that can also help promote freedom
    of expression.
        Technical support: Congress deserves great praise for
    supporting development of tools and technologies that are
    helping people get around Internet blocking. But these tools do
    not counter other tactics regimes are also increasingly using.
    Our support, therefore, should also include tools and training
    to help people evade surveillance, detect spyware, and protect
    against cyber attacks. We also need to help people develop
    mechanisms to preserve and redistribute censored content that
    has been taken off the Internet. We should also help with
    platforms through which citizens around the world can share
    information and tactics to fight for Internet freedom and
    empower those individuals.
        Finally, Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that
    Internet freedom is a core American value and policy priority.
    In reviving the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, the
    administration can improve coordination so that the U.S.
    Government agencies to not inadvertently constrain Internet
    freedom in the course of pursuing other policy goals.
        In conclusion, it is clear that the Internet has brought
    new challenges to all governments, most companies, and most
    parents for that matter. Mr. Chairman, I hope this Congress
    will work to ensure that our cybersecurity solutions, our child
    protection efforts, economic strategies, and business deals at
    home and abroad will all be compatible with a free and open
    global Internet. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. MacKinnon
    follows:]MacKinnon statement deg.

        Chairman Berman. I am tempted to say easier said than done,
    but I hope we can do that.
        Dr. Wortzel?

    STATEMENT OF LARRY M. WORTZEL, PH.D., COMMISSIONER, U.S.-CHINA
                ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION

        Mr. Wortzel. Chairman Berman, Mr. Smith, members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. The
    views I will present are my own. They are a product of my
    service on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
    Commission, decades of service as an Army intelligence officer,
    and decades of study of China. China is the origin of extensive
    and malicious cyber activities that target the United States.
    Our commission, in a contracted report, provided a case study
    of a penetration into the computer systems of an American high
    technology company.
        The study detailed the way the data was acquired and
    transferred to an Internet protocol address in China and what
    institutional and individual actors in China may have been
    involved. Now I am going to discuss three types of malicious
    Chinese computer network operations: Those that strengthen
    political control in China; those that gather economic,
    military, or technology intelligence and information; and those
    that reconnoiter, map, and gather targeting information on U.S.
    military, government, or civil infrastructure networks for
    later exploitation.
        The organizations in China most likely to have gathered the
    information or attempted to gather information about rights
    activists during the Google penetrations are those responsible
    for internal security, repression of the Chinese population,
    and control over the distribution of information. These are the
    Ministry of State Security, the Public Security Bureau, and
    subsidiaries of the Chinese Communist Party such as the Party's
    Central Propaganda Department.
        The second type of malicious activity is intended to gather
    information of military, technical, scientific, or economic
    value. Gathering this type of information may speed the
    development and fielding of weapons, improve technology in
    sectors of China's industries, while saving time and money in
    research and development, and compromises valuable intellectual
    property. The organizations of the Chinese Government with the
    mission and capability to conduct such activities span military
    and civilian agencies as well as the state owned companies in
    China's military industrial complex.
        Now, not all cyber-espionage in China is government
    controlled. There are plenty of cyber-espionage entrepreneurs
    who operate outside the government and who could be working on
    behalf of Chinese companies or state run science and technology
    parts. But let us be candid, when the Department of Justice is
    prosecuting several espionage cases involving the acquisition
    by China of defense technologies and military information and
    the same type of data is being stolen by cyber penetrations, a
    logical person would conclude that the vast majority of this
    activity is directed by the Chinese Government.
        In the third type of cyber activity, China's intelligence
    or military services penetrate computers that control our vital
    infrastructure or our military computer networks, reconnoiter
    them electronically, and map or target nodes in the system for
    future penetration or attack. Malicious code is often left
    behind to facilitate future entry. Regarding this third type of
    computer network penetration, General James Cartwright
    suggested that effects associated with a cyber attack could be
    in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction, and former
    Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently made
    a similar comparison.
        Now, I believe the government should vigorously monitor and
    defend our Government computer and critical infrastructure
    networks. Congress also should put in place legislation that
    facilitates similar programs for industry. Our Government
    should work closely with allies and friends to combat malicious
    cyber activity, and we should ally with like minded nations to
    keep the worldwide web out of the control of some international
    body and authoritarian governments such as the one in China
    that would stop the free exchange of ideas and virtual freedom
    of association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I
    will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wortzel
    follows:]Wortzel statement deg.

        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Holleyman. For a second I thought I was in the
    Judiciary Committee.

     STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT W. HOLLEYMAN, II, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                       BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE

        Mr. Holleyman. Exactly, that is a good committee as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, and
    Mr. Smith, other members of this committee. This is certainly a
    timely and important hearing, and the Business Software
    Alliance which represents leading companies in the software,
    hardware, and Internet arena welcomes the opportunity to
    provide its perspective. A number of the companies and
    individuals talking today have provided key aspects to today's
    hearing. I would like to talk about some of the challenges that
    we face as an industry in ensuring that the Internet is an open
    platform for communication.
        We are proud of the fact that the tools that companies--
    largely American-based companies--have developed and have
    deployed that have allowed both the greatest economic
    opportunity and for individual and personal communication to
    disseminate around the world. The announcement just earlier
    this week that you referred to in your opening statement, Mr.
    Chairman, by the Treasury Department shows just how important
    it is to get communications tools into the hands of
    individuals, including in countries with repressive regimes.
        And the U.S. has an important role in the area of global
    cyber technology leadership and cybersecurity leadership.
    President Obama spoke to that issue in the Cyberspace Policy
    Review, and the international component of that, and the
    international leadership by the U.S. is critical. I would like
    to address today three issues: (1) the legal environments that
    restrict U.S. technology companies from foreign markets; (2)
    the tolerance of industrial theft of U.S. intellectual
    property; and (3) the threat of cyber attacks.
        First, let me address the market restrictions we are
    facing. Some governments are taking steps that would displace
    American technology from current and, more importantly, future
    and growing markets by implementing restrictive industrial
    policies. For example, the Chinese Government is pursuing
    indigenous innovation policies that are aimed at shutting
    foreign firms out of the market or compelling them to transfer
    their intellectual property and relocate their research and
    development to China.
        I was pleased to have an opportunity to testify late last
    year before Ms. Watson in the first subcommittee hearing that
    looked at this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, your own letter to the
    Chinese ambassador making it clear that this issue of
    indigenous innovation policy as a means of shutting American
    and other countries' companies out of the market not only in
    technology but for green development--for the most innovative
    technology--was an issue that demanded high level attention.
    Certainly the administration is making it such, but we have not
    yet achieved significant progress with China.
        Late last year, China attempted to mandate that all
    computers sold in the country had Green Dam filtering software.
    And again, as you said in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
    we were one of the industry groups that joined together across
    continents to call on China to reverse that policy because of
    its impact on security, privacy, and the free flow of
    information. Fortunately, the Chinese Government suspended this
    mandate, but it could return in the future.
        Other witnesses have addressed specific laws and policies
    that impose restrictions on the free flow of information, and
    some of these policies impede the ability of technology
    companies to operate in these countries. Both at home and
    abroad, U.S. companies are bound to follow the laws of the
    jurisdictions where they do business. In some instances, these
    laws confront American companies with a difficult binary
    choice: Stay in the market and comply with local law, or leave.
    We believe that remaining engaged in those markets is important
    wherever possible to do so.
        Second is the issue of theft of intellectual property. Mr.
    McMahon mentioned this in his opening comment. This is an
    important issue in many markets. China is probably the market
    where it is of the highest importance. This problem is
    restricting the ability of organizations--of companies
    operating out of the U.S.--and their workers to access foreign
    markets, and it harms the U.S. economy. Most software theft
    occurs when an otherwise legitimate business illegally copies
    software for its use. When that is repeated millions of times
    around the world, this conduct has a staggering cumulative
    effect.
        But more importantly, software theft distorts competition
    and it destroys American jobs. A company that steals
    productivity software for its use competes unfairly against a
    company that pays for it. Both enjoy productivity benefits from
    the software, but only one is bearing the legitimate cost.
    Which means, for example, that in a country like China, where
    only 20 percent of the productivity software is paid for,
    Chinese enterprises are enjoying an unfair advantage over their
    U.S. competitors who are paying for the licensed software.
        So this issue goes way beyond the IP industry, and in this
    case touches every business that is affected by a high-piracy
    country. And we believe that the U.S. has to use tough
    diplomacy and tough trade measures to attack these issues.
        And third is the issue of cyber attacks and cyber
    intrusions, one of the three prongs of this hearing. These
    intrusions and attacks are preventing the Internet from
    reaching its full potential, and unfortunately the cyber
    attacks experienced by Google and other companies as talked
    about today were not unique.
        In this era of increased interconnectedness, having
    commercial security practices as well as government attention
    to cybersecurity is vital to our economic and national
    security. Our companies are also among the leaders in building
    and implementing cyber technology. We support the
    administration's ambitious international cybersecurity
    strategy, and this has to be an international priority. No one
    country can do it alone. In my written statement I have listed
    seven steps that we would recommend for the U.S. and for any
    country to look at as a matter of law and working with the
    private sector to enhance cybersecurity.
        Let me simply say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Smith, that the Internet is growing and changing. A majority of
    Internet users reside outside the U.S., and that majority is
    growing rapidly. As leaders in Internet technology, U.S.
    companies have a toe-hold in many of these fastest growing
    markets. We believe strongly that it is both in U.S. foreign
    policy interest and U.S. domestic economic interest for U.S.
    technology companies to remain present in overseas markets as
    the next generation of the Internet is built out.
        And we want to work with this committee, with the Congress
    and with the government in ensuring that we have the ability as
    American companies to be the platform that provides these
    communications and information tools and to fight against the
    challenges that we face, and we thank you for holding this
    hearing. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holleyman
    follows:]Holleyman statement deg.

        Chairman Berman. Well thank you very much, all of you. A
    lot of questions here. We may, I know I am going to want to
    have at least my shot at a second round and if others want to
    as well. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes, and then
    I am going to turn the chair over to Mr. Sherman while I have a
    meeting, but we will proceed. The Post this morning talks about
    Iran blocking foreign domestic Web sites--that is the
    Washington Post, not the New York Post--Iran blocking foreign
    domestic Web sites to curb antigovernment activists.
        It raises an issue that Ms. MacKinnon touches on in her
    testimony and that we have been thinking about a lot in terms
    of the Iran sanctions bill and export control reform. In
    addition to the Treasury license which was granted this week,
    what changes are needed to our Iran embargo to help facilitate
    protection for the dissenters in Iran? And the flip side of
    this is, are there technologies that sometimes U.S.
    subsidiaries, sometimes companies located in allied countries,
    are exporting to Iran that may aid their ability for the
    government to suppress communication? Do any of you just want
    to take a crack at that?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I am happy to take a crack at beginning, I
    am sure there will be other thoughts as well. Speaking to
    Iranian bloggers and activists, members of the green movement
    in Iran, people raise a number of issues, and they very much
    welcome the initial steps by the Treasury Department in making
    it legal now for Google and many other companies to provide
    access to their free services, but there is concern that
    Iranian activists, it is still illegal for American web hosting
    companies to provide them paid web hosting service. So if an
    Iranian green movement Web site wants to be hosted outside of
    Iran, they cannot purchase that space on a web hosting service
    directly because it is illegal for that American company to
    serve them.
        Chairman Berman. Illegal because our codification of our
    embargo?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Absolutely.
        Chairman Berman. So an amendment to that could deal with
    that problem?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Right. And also because this latest step
    only handles free services, for instance another issue that
    Iranian activists face is the ability to buy domain names
    outside of .IR, which is controlled by the government, they
    can't buy domain names very easily directly from international
    registrars. So they have to go through third parties, people
    exiled, and so on, and so what that leads to is that their
    domain names often get stolen by hackers and others, and it
    makes them much more vulnerable, it makes it much more
    difficult for them to run Web sites outside of Iran that are
    accessible.
        Chairman Berman. Explain that a second, why would it make
    it more usually subject to theft?
        Ms. Mackinnon. So if you cannot control your account
    directly.
        Chairman Berman. I see, all right.
        Ms. Mackinnon. You are relying on second or third parties.
        Chairman Berman. There are intermediaries getting into this
    transaction.
        Ms. Mackinnon. It makes it much harder to maintain control
    over your domain name. And so there have been some instances
    lately of green movement Web sites that got hacked, and then
    their domain names were stolen, but they couldn't easily regain
    control because they couldn't interact directly with the domain
    name registrars and so on because it wasn't legal for the
    domain name registrars to do that. So there are a number of
    issues like that. Activists also point to the issue of----
        Chairman Berman. Tell you what, let me interject here only
    because I am going to run out of time. I am actually quite
    serious about trying to pursue some specific things we need to
    do to change our law because I think we are going to have an
    opportunity to in the Iran legislation, and so I will follow up
    with you.
        Ms. Mackinnon. Right. And so the point is that there are a
    lot of paid services that individuals need access to in order
    to really speak out in the way they need to.
        Chairman Berman. I got it.
        Ms. Mackinnon. And also individual equipment, access to
    satellite phones that enable people to access the Internet
    through satellite and so on, the individual ability to purchase
    that.
        Chairman Berman. I am going to follow up with you; we are
    going to get the specifics and move on that. In my last 20
    seconds, Mr. Holleyman, how come more of your members haven't
    joined the Global Network Initiative?
        Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question.
    Certainly we have discussed this with a number of our members.
    The Global Network Initiative, as I understand it, was
    initially created to deal with companies who were functioning
    mostly as Internet service providers. And so the three largest
    American companies working in that area, Google, Microsoft, and
    Yahoo----
        Chairman Berman. Mr. Holleyman, I hate to do this to
    myself, but my time is expired, so we will follow up on it.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask unanimous consent that the
    chairman be given an extra 30 seconds so we can hear the answer
    to that question.
        Chairman Berman. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Holleyman. It was an issue that the GNI was initially
    started to deal with companies who were working as Internet
    service providers. There are discussions underway with the
    executive secretariate and others at the GNI about potentially
    expanding it to deal with companies in a broader group of
    technology functions. And many of our companies are part of
    discussing that, but those who are the ISPs, for whom it was
    created, are part of that effort. Other companies certainly are
    working actively today with the U.N. Compact as well, so they
    are looking at it in a variety of ways.
        Chairman Berman. My time is expired. I recognize the
    gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a
    few questions of the panelists, and thank you for your
    testimony and for your work following the White House decision
    to support Google's action to no longer censor searches,
    Microsoft made it very clear that it will stay in China, and it
    was quoted in Forbes, ``' deg.We've been quite clear
    that we are going to operate in China,'' said Microsoft CEO
    Steve Ballmer. On January 22nd Forbes reports that Ballmer
    suggested in his speech to oil company executives that
    ``Google's decision to no longer filter out Internet searches
    objectionable to the Chinese Government was an irrational
    business decision.'' deg. ``' deg.The U.S. is
    the most extreme when it comes to free speech.'' said
    Balmer.'' deg.
        Frankly, I find that outrageous. I am not sure how the
    panel feels about that. When I asked the four top Internet
    companies, more than just Internet, Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo,
    and Google, to testify back in 2006 and it took us months to
    get them to come voluntarily, which they did, we had that kind
    of statement from each of those representatives. It was
    disheartening, both to myself as chair and to Tom Lantos, who
    was the ranking member. We left no stone unturned in trying to
    point out the disservice that that did to the human rights
    activists. And now Mr. Ballmer, with that kind of statement,
    shows that there has been no learning curve or very little, and
    I would appreciate any thoughts that any of you might have on
    that statement which I find unconscionable.
        Secondly, Harry Wu had testified that Cisco said that the
    Chinese Secret Police were sold by Cisco Police Net, which
    substantially enabled the detection, arrest, torture, and
    incarceration of political dissidents, labor leaders, and
    religious people as well. As a matter of fact, Ms. MacKinnon,
    he quoted your Web site in his testimony. Obviously, much
    damage has been done. As we all know, with any high tech there
    always needs to be upgrades, there always need to be
    technological enhancements, as new products come online.
        And the issue, as awful as it exists today, the cyber
    police are combing the Internet looking for anybody who puts in
    the word Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, underground Christians,
    Uighurs, you name it. On the security side as well there are
    all kinds of mischief being done searching for anybody who has
    a contrary view to Beijing. What would you suggest we do vis-a-
    vis a Cisco in order to mitigate even more harm being done? At
    the end title of our Global Online Freedom Act, we originally
    had a dual-use effort, to try to stop dual-use products, I
    should say, that could be abused by police. It is now a
    feasibility study because several members objected to it, but I
    just want to ask you if you could, I don't have much time,
    comment on those two issues first, Ballmer and Cisco.
        Ms. Wong. So as a member of the Global Network Initiative
    with Rebecca and both Yahoo and Microsoft, we were frankly very
    puzzled by the comments that were reported from Mr. Ballmer,
    because they are not consistent with the conversations we have
    been having at the GNI for the last 3 years, and certainly we
    would never minimize the human rights impact of censorship in
    China or any other country. We do think that the forum for GNI
    provides a really important role for companies to talk about,
    what they are seeing on the ground in all of these countries,
    and hopefully it continues to have that role.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. MacKinnon?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I was very puzzled as well by Mr. Ballmer's
    statement because I too felt that it really contradicted a lot
    of the work that other Microsoft executives have been doing in
    the Global Network Initiative. And it certainly is true that
    the GNI is not seeking to do a one-size-fits-all, that in all
    cases you have to do X. Every business is different, these
    businesses need to make conscious decisions on their own based
    on precisely what their products are and precisely what their
    business relationships are. So we are not saying that Microsoft
    should follow exactly what Google does in all situations.
    However, Microsoft at a working level has been trying to
    implement greater transparency and human rights assessments in
    their businesses in China and elsewhere. So Mr. Ballmer's
    statement was indeed extremely puzzling.
        Mr. Wortzel. Businesses mitigate risk often without direct
    concern for human rights or national security, and that is
    where some of these export controls come in. But dual-use
    items, I would just tell you, are very difficult. I mean I had
    an experience in a plant in China, or a manufacturing facility,
    that was working on pollution control systems. And I looked
    inside the router boxes and found routers that were coproduced
    by a major American defense company and ten miles up the road
    the partner of that defense company had a Chinese electronic
    warfare and electronic countermeasures regiment in its yard
    being outfitted with the same routers, so I would just say it
    is a difficult problem.
        Mr. Smith. I see I am out of time, but if we could go back
    in the second round to Cisco and some additional questions.
        Mr. Sherman [presiding]. Thank you. My first question is
    for Ms. Wong; it may be a step outside the general scope of
    these hearings. I stumble across illegal pirated works on the
    Internet, full Bruce Springsteen albums, entire seasons of
    current television shows available online, and sometimes they
    are surrounded by Google ads. Now, I understand that it is
    Google's policy to prohibit users from displaying Google ads
    alongside unlawful content, and I would like to know how Google
    is enforcing that policy. When you get a take-down notice for a
    copyright or trademark owner, do you automatically remove the
    ads placed next to the infringing material? And how long does
    it take for you to remove the illegal material and the
    advertising?
        Ms. Wong. So, of course for both business and legal
    reasons, we feel very strongly about protection of intellectual
    property and the removal of illegal content from our systems.
    We build our systems with both automated processes as well as
    manual processes to make sure that we do that well. I don't
    know the specific take-down times that you are asking me for,
    but I am happy to come back.
        Mr. Sherman. I am going to ask you to supplement your
    answer for the record.
        Ms. Wong. Sure.
        Mr. Sherman. But is it your policy that when you have
    unlawful material, you take down the ads?
        Ms. Wong. When we identify unlawful material where our ads
    are showing, it is our policy to remove them.
        Mr. Sherman. I will ask you to respond for the record to
    the more detailed portions of the question. Mr. Holleyman, you
    asked us to get tough. Businesses are always coming to Congress
    and asking us to get tough, and then when you ask them for
    specifics they basically ask that we beg in a louder voice,
    which is not effective with China. Business communities are
    totally unwilling to say, Well why don't we have a week where
    we block our ports to Chinese imports? Are you proposing
    anything tough or are you like other businesses, business
    representatives just wanting us to beg?
        Mr. Holleyman. We believe that a record needs to built very
    quickly that is completely solid in terms of the economic harm
    that is being caused to the U.S., and particularly in my
    reference to the unfair subsidies that are effectively existing
    for companies outside the U.S. who are using illegal software,
    and we know that there are Members of Congress who are asking
    for those to be built. And then we think that we need to take
    appropriate action.
        Mr. Sherman. Does taking appropriate action actually do
    anything, or are you just asking us to beg with big stacks of
    legal documents?
        Mr. Holleyman. No, no, I mean we think----
        Mr. Sherman. Are you proposing action that would in any way
    diminish Chinese access to U.S. markets or impose taxes on
    Chinese goods coming into our markets?
        Mr. Holleyman. We are proposing that the U.S. use the
    bilateral mechanisms we have and the multilateral through the
    WTO.
        Mr. Sherman. I guarantee delay and failure unless you are
    willing to support, and the business community is ready to
    support, immediate, you know, action at the ports on the
    ground, real action. These bilateral, you know, we will throw
    paper at them, they will throw paper at us, nothing is going to
    happen. And my next question is rather, you know, requires a
    technical knowledge of the Internet, and I used to look around
    the audience for someone with a plastic pocket protector and
    figure that was the person, but I am looking, I can't find
    anybody in the audience, so I will address this to Mr.
    Holleyman unless there is someone else with a greater technical
    knowledge.
        And that is, in a war between a group of software engineers
    that are trying to build a wall and a group of software
    engineers who are trying to poke holes in the wall, who has got
    the upper hand? It would seem to me that you just have to poke
    one hole in the wall, one way for the word to get around to
    Chinese citizens as to how to have access to the real Internet.
    How difficult is it for us to build these holes?
        Mr. Holleyman. Our experience in a whole host of areas is
    that it is always possible to punch a hole. And whether it is
    just in general security technology, it is always possible to
    do it. It is not easy, but it happens. And the converse of that
    is that we look to build more secure systems in the U.S. to
    prevent attacks. We know that holes will be punched, but we
    have to keep building in an arms race to build more secure
    technology.
        Mr. Sherman. I see my time is expired. I will recognize the
    man from California, the outstanding representative Mr.
    Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we
    are discussing today actually goes to the heart of a
    contradiction, and you can't treat gangsters and tyrants as if
    they are the same as democratic leaders and honest people and
    expect there not to be some problem developing. And this is
    what we are talking about here today. China is a vicious
    dictatorship. They may well have had a lot of economic reform
    in the sense that they have had economic progress, but there
    has been no liberalization whatsoever politically.
        And we have our business community, you know, stepping on
    themselves trying to get over there to make a profit dealing
    with these gangsters. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got to come to
    grips with that. The corporate world isn't going to make these
    decisions on their own. They are looking to us as
    representatives of the democratic society that we represent to
    set the ground rules because they aren't able to do it
    themselves because stockholders are clamoring for profit et
    cetera. Google is making an attempt, but again, announcements
    are one thing, actually implementing policies are another. Let
    me ask one thing. Are religious groups as well, like the Falun
    Gong, being discriminated against finding themselves with
    Internet restrictions in China?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I can answer your question about the Falun
    Gong. Yes, Falun Gong material is heavily censored on the
    Chinese Internet.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So Falun Gong, the Uighurs we know are,
    the Tibetan Buddhists are. So we could say that if religion
    manifests itself in some actual power in a society, we have got
    a regime that is willing to use a heavy hand to try to stamp
    that out or to restrict their abilities to utilize technology
    in their freedom. I don't know, again the central problem here
    is that we are trying to treat China as if it is Belgium, and
    it is not. China is not a democratic country, and we should
    have different rules.
        When we talk about World Trade Organization and MFN, what
    we are really talking about is trying to get a dictatorship
    into the same rules that apply to democratic countries. You
    know, this is the challenge we face, I think it is not one that
    we can solve. I think that frankly dictatorships do not deserve
    the same trading rights and the same considerations that we
    give to democratic countries. As I say, it is the concept of
    free trade between free people.
        At the same time we must make sure that we are siding with
    the people of China. The people of China, I happen to believe,
    are our greatest ally in the cause of world peace and
    democracy. Because if we are going to have world peace and the
    promotion of freedom in the world, the people of China are on
    the front line, and what we have to make sure that everybody
    knows is the people of the United States and our Government
    and, yes, our corporations through government mandates are on
    the side of the people of China and not the dictatorship.
        Which means that when the companies fell over themselves
    trying to sell computers to the police of China, I am sorry,
    yes they could say, Well the police are just a neutral thing,
    they are just law and order. No it is not. The Gestapo and the
    police in Nazi Germany were not the same as the police in
    London or in the United States. So, Mr. Chairman, I am looking
    forward and I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
    Smith of course, for this Global Online Freedom Act and some of
    the really--and we have gotten to the point and to the heart of
    the matter on this trade issue with China, and I am a proud
    supporter of the Global Online Freedom Act.
        And I would hope, and that is why I wanted you to have an
    extra 30 seconds to answer that, I would hope corporate America
    starts making some moral stands in that way too when our
    Government is trying to stand up for what this country is all
    about. If it wasn't for our Government and our country standing
    up for these principles of freedom, none of your corporations
    would have the ability to make any money, none. Because we
    wouldn't have freedom in this country, we wouldn't have a free
    enterprise system. So it behooves you to sort of perhaps get
    behind great efforts like this in Congress to stand up for
    American principles. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We have another
    representative from the great state of California, the great
    Lynn Woolsey.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is so
    frustrating. The United States is not a vicious dictatorship,
    we know that. But we have citizens right here in our own
    country, including very young folks, kids almost, who can break
    into our own Department of Defense computer systems and
    information systems, and do from afar. So is this even possible
    in this world of ours of so many smart people, so many ways
    around everything to protect information?
        And certainly, you know, there is a difference between
    protecting information through security and economic bottom
    line and allowing people to have freedom of speech, I mean they
    go hand in hand. But when we open up for freedom of speech do
    we then open up even more for the ability to be hacked? Where
    do we go with this and what is it costing us and what is the
    tradeoff? I know that is very big, but that is as technical as
    I can get. Mr. Holleyman?
        Mr. Holleyman. Ms. Woolsey, thank you for the question. I
    think we know that as we have opened up the Internet and opened
    up computing technology we have opened up vast channels for
    positive information and positive growth. At the same time,
    that interconnectedness has posed vulnerabilities, and it
    really is very much in the area of cybersecurity an arms race
    to build more secure systems because the bad elements, bad
    actors, whether they are state-supported or individuals, have
    sophisticated technology.
        I was in San Francisco last week with 16,000 people for the
    RSA Security Conference. Howard Schmidt, who is the President's
    new Cybersecurity Advisor--the first in the White House--spoke
    quite well about the steps we need to take to make us more
    secure. There are billions of dollars that the U.S. is
    spending, both in working with the private sector but also to
    build more secure networks in the U.S. and to make sure that we
    have full cybercapacity.
        But at the heart of your question is an anomaly, that the
    U.S. is the largest source of cyber-criminal activity in the
    world, and that is because we are the most connected country in
    terms of our business work, so it is not surprising. China is
    number two. Germany and France are three and four. So this is
    ultimately a global problem, it is going to take global
    solutions, and we will not be able to block the cyber
    intrusions completely. What we have to do is make sure though
    that we continue to build the best technology, build private
    sector solutions, and it is neither one nor the other. We will
    have more interconnectedness, but through that we will have
    more vulnerabilities.
        Mr. Wortzel. Ms. Woolsey?
        Ms. Woolsey. Yes?
        Mr. Wortzel. Let me say that just as the government has
    tried to approach this through ensuring that on Federal systems
    you have trusted hardware and trusted software developed here
    in the United States, there are things you can do, at far
    higher cost. But if your software research and development, and
    I am just going to use China, if your software research and
    development is in China and your hardware is being
    manufactured, researched, developed, and manufactured in China,
    and people who do this work in China move freely between
    companies and government agencies, you are never going to be
    secure. The best you can do is monitor what goes on on your
    net.
        Ms. Woolsey. Ms. MacKinnon?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Well, Ms. Woolsey, I think you really do hit
    the heart of the problem about this balance between the need
    for security and the need for freedom. And really, you know,
    this goes back to when our own country was being founded and
    you had the arguments between Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton
    about where do you get the right balance between freedom and
    security in order to have both a secure and adequately free
    society. And we are now kind of taking that argument from a
    country level to a global level on the Internet, and how do we
    get that balance right globally? Because we can't divide it up
    country by country.
        And Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out to the problem of treating
    markets all like they are Belgium. Part of the problem too is
    that our technology treats all countries like they are Belgium.
    So Nokia, for instance, when it sold its equipment to Iran, its
    equipment by default included a lawful interception gateway,
    which when implemented in the context of proper judicial
    oversight over the police and what not, is deemed, you know,
    was required in Europe for Nokia to include that technology in
    its phones and in its systems. But you take that into a place
    like Iran and you have got 1984.
        Same with the Calea requirements in American made routers
    and so on, the communications assistance for law enforcement.
    There are technical requirements that we build into our
    equipment on the assumption that this equipment is going to be
    used in a society that has oversight, but then that equipment
    is sold into a society where there is no oversight and where
    crime is defined broadly to include political and religious
    speech. So how do we prevent that from happening?
        Ms. Woolsey. You are supposed to tell us. You are the
    witnesses.
        Ms. Mackinnon. Well, it is difficult. We need to be
    thinking about, you know, the systems that we are building and
    we are assuming are going to be universally used, how are those
    systems going to get distorted when they are applied globally,
    and do we need to rethink what we bake into our technology as a
    default?
        Mr. Sherman. I think the time of the gentlelady is expired.
    We have yet another talented Member from the State of
    California, the ranking member of the Terrorism,
    Nonproliferation, deg. and Trade Subcommittee, of
    course the best subcommittee of the full committee, and that is
    of course Ed Royce.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Wortzel, in reading
    your testimony, one thing I think jumps out to all these
    Californians here today, or should, and that is your coverage
    of the Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems
    Engineering of Dalian University of Technology and their
    published paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid
    subnetwork in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the
    entire U.S. West Coast power grid. How helpful in terms of that
    university study.
        Also, just reading through your testimony and listening to
    your remarks, Chinese military officers noted that scholars
    hold differing opinions about whether a computer network attack
    may constitute an act of war. They also note the frequent
    difficulty in accurately identifying the source of cyber
    attacks and argued that the source must be clearly identified
    before a counterattack could be responsibly launched.
        I am going back to your quote from General James
    Cartwright, who was commander of the U.S. Strategic Command,
    and he is currently vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    He said, ``I don't think the U.S. has gotten its head around
    the issue yet, but I think that we should start to consider
    that effects associated with a cyber attack could in fact be in
    the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction.''
        And I would ask you in light of those comments, and in
    light of the fact, as you say, that China currently is thought
    by many analysts to have the world's largest denial of service
    capability and you go through exactly what that would mean, let
    me ask you this. It was reported that the White House National
    Security Council downgraded China in our country's intelligence
    collection priorities from priority 1 to priority 2. In your
    opinion, is China less of a security threat today than it was
    last year or the year before, and is the decision to downgrade
    China wise in your opinion? Commissioner?
        Mr. Wortzel. Mr. Royce, it is and remains, according to the
    director of National Intelligence, the director of the FBI, the
    number one intelligence threat to the United States. It is only
    one of two countries that can put nuclear warheads on the
    United States, and we have no existing arms control
    architecture with China. So it should absolutely be the number
    one priority.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Commissioner. I will also ask you, we
    have heard reports that the cyber attacks on Google and other
    countries originated from within China, but officially, many
    have danced around China's role, or at least the Chinese
    Government's role in this, right? So for a minute if we were to
    be frank, were these attacks sponsored by the Chinese
    Government?
        Mr. Wortzel. I don't believe that the Chinese Government
    has any interest in how Google fares inside China. They have an
    interest in making sure that Baidu, which is partially owned by
    them, does well. So if Google has code stolen, I am not a
    lawyer, I don't have to argue it in court, I am an intelligence
    officer, I am going to analyze who could do it, who profits,
    what might happen. I have very little doubt that is who did it.
    And with respect to this, the information on rights activists,
    I couldn't tell you if it was the Ministry of State Security or
    the Public Security Bureau, but it was the Chinese Government
        Mr. Royce. Thank you. Thank you. We have heard much on
    China, I think rightfully so. I am equally concerned on the
    attacks and the persecution especially of Vietnamese cyber-
    dissidents. There the government continues its crackdown on
    those that blog on democracy and human rights. The Communist
    government there removes some postings, but more problematic is
    their resorting to violence in the most extreme cases, and I
    was wondering, and I think I will ask this of Rebecca MacKinnon
    from Princeton University's Center for Information Technology
    Policy, I would ask you if you could speak on how bloggers
    could evade detection from authorities when they want to talk
    about free speech. How do you get around that kind of?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Well, there are tools, anonymity tools. One
    is called Tor, which is an open source tool, and there are a
    number of others, that help you disguise your IP address as you
    access a Web site. So there are methods, and there is a range
    of other methods as well that people who have gained
    instruction and awareness can use. But many people are not
    sufficiently aware of how to cover their tracks on the
    Internet, and end up taking one measure but not another
    measure, end up being under surveillance because they
    downloaded some software that had spyware in it, and so on.
        So it is very difficult to evade detection, although it is
    possible. But there is also a lot of other issues too related
    to how social networking services, like Facebook to just give
    one example among many others, how they handle their privacy
    policies, and to make sure that not only are they to the liking
    of American teenagers but that also that American companies
    with global Internet services have really done a human rights
    stress test on these services to makes sure that certain
    security services can't take advantage of them.
        Mr. Sherman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses.
        Mr. Sherman. I will point out to the witnesses that the
    statement that America does not torture applies only to the
    executive branch; the chair has announced his intention to do a
    second round. And demonstrating that not all wisdom comes from
    California, we now have an outstanding member of the committee,
    the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Well thank you very much. I was getting a
    complex, Chris and I. I am just wondering, Ms. Wong, how much
    negotiating powers does a company like Google have when you
    have foreign governments that have these sense of policies. I
    mean do you have any leverage at all?
        Ms. Wong. It is a very good question. And as a single
    company, it is based on your ability to engage that government
    and hopefully having someone who is reasonable on the other
    side, and that is certainly not always the case. One of the
    reasons that we were one of the founding members of the Global
    Network Initiative is actually to improve our ability to deal
    with these governments, so that you would have a set of
    companies that could approach a government about policies and
    as a united front tell them that you were not willing to do
    certain types of censorship or not willing to deal with some of
    their more restrictive laws. But it is very difficult and
    different in every country.
        Mr. Sires. Well, you know, as I looked at--I am originally
    from Cuba and I am always very interested in the process there.
    I mean only last year did they allow cell phones on the island.
    You can imagine the government how they restrain information,
    and now we have a situation where somebody was doling out
    computers and he is in jail. How does a private company and
    government work together to prevent this stuff from happening?
    I mean they could care less.
        Ms. Wong. Right. From a company perspective, what we do is
    do a human rights impact assessment before entering a country,
    before deciding to put people on the ground. So we will
    actually look at a country in terms of what is the rule of law,
    what are their censorship laws like, what are their government
    surveillance laws like, to know it before going in or offering
    a product there exactly what we might be in for in terms of
    dealing with that government or regime. That is one step.
        We have had in the past issues where we actually couldn't
    come to agreement with other governments and actually have
    found that our Government through the State Department and
    other areas were extremely helpful in being a partner with us
    to intercede in those discussions. And that is one of the
    reasons in my recommendations in my testimony I talk about
    using this making freedom of expression part of our foreign
    policy, making it part of our trade agreements, which gives
    both us and our Government a better platform for having those
    conversations.
        Mr. Sires. Well thank you very much. Dr. Wortzel, we are in
    the middle of a big cold war here, and I just wanted your
    opinion on where you think America is at in terms of awareness
    of how serious this issue is. I mean we have bad economic
    times, we have issues that we are working on, but is America
    really focusing enough on this new cold war that is happening
    today? This could have repercussions beyond, you know, what we
    can even think.
        Mr. Wortzel. Well, first of all, it is very different from
    the Cold War in the sense that we don't have, you know, the
    containment policy against China. We are heavily engaged. But
    we are certainly already engaged in a cyber war. We are
    certainly already engaged in a military competition and space
    competition, and at the same time we are heavily dependent on
    each other in trade, banking, and finance. So I think you have
    to be very careful how you navigate your way through that. I
    think the public needs to be aware of the threats. Much of what
    the Congress and the American people thought would happen by
    getting China into the World Trade Organization and opening
    normal trade relations with it in terms of democratizing did
    not occur.
        Mr. Sires. Did not.
        Mr. Wortzel. It did not occur, it did not democratize, it
    got worse, as a matter of fact. So it has a very free economy,
    or a reasonably free economy that is growing, but more
    effective repression. So I think----
        Mr. Sires. And it comes to--I hate to interrupt--but it
    comes to my point that I hate to see the China model become the
    model throughout some of these countries.
        Mr. Wortzel. Well, I think you are absolutely right there,
    and it takes careful export controls and careful controls over
    what we do in terms of trade.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wortzel. Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. The
    gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had a number
    of small businesses who have been adversely impacted by unfair
    business practices as I ventured out into the global market.
    And then just in general, I know that it has been brought up
    previously, but I really am concerned, I guess I don't
    understand the ability for a Chinese counterfeiter to use
    Google advertising to sell its products, to buy that trademark
    and purchase the trademark of the company involved and then
    sell the products.
        I think there has been litigation in the past, here in the
    United States, Geico, American Airlines. But for the small
    businesses, the people that don't have the deep pockets, the
    people that don't have the ability to litigate and go through
    that long process, it is very, very difficult. So my question
    is, why can't we have the same policy? Don't sell another
    company's trademark to counterfeiters. I mean I just don't
    understand that. So if you all could comment on that it would
    be appreciated. But these are the kind of things that have to
    be worked out in the future as the world becomes smaller. It
    just seems very, very unfair, and so if you would comment I
    would appreciate that.
        Ms. Wong. So our trademark policies permit advertisers who
    come to the Google adware system to advertise based on certain
    keywords. We actually have a very robust process that is both
    automated and manual to try and prevent the misuse of
    trademarks and to assist trademark owners in protecting their
    rights. Having said that, there is a freedom of expression
    component on being able to advertise on particular keywords.
    Take apple for example. An advertiser who wants to advertise on
    the word apple, we have to be able to detect what they mean,
    whether they are in competition with the computer or with the
    fruit. And so that type of process is something that we are
    working on all the time to improve.
        Mr. Boozman. So if a business owner, once they establish
    that there is a problem, and these things are sometimes very
    cut and dried, then you do take steps and fix the problem
    immediately?
        Ms. Wong. Yes, we do have both an automated and a full team
    that is dedicated to resolving those issues.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. Would the rest of you all agree? Mr.
    Holleyman?
        Mr. Holleyman. Congressman, I can't comment on those
    specific policies. What I can comment on though is the broader
    question, which is, each of your constituents, businesses large
    and small, who have competitors in a high-piracy country like
    China have a disadvantage against their Chinese competitor who
    is using the same productivity tools but who, in the case of
    China, 80 percent of those businesses are not paying for it
    while your constituents are. And so this is an issue that goes
    well beyond whether you are in the software industry or the
    technology industry, but it is unfair competition, and in
    addition to the specific cases related to ads we need to look
    at this broader impact that goes to every district, every
    business in this country.
        Ms. Mackinnon. Just briefly, to put this in a broader free
    expression context as well, there have been some concerns,
    particularly there have been some discussions about policies
    and laws in some European jurisdictions, and there is also the
    ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act, that is a state secret
    so we don't know what is really in it. But one of the things
    that sometimes is advocated by copyright holders, who certainly
    deserve to have their intellectual property protected, is that
    greater liability be placed on carriers and platforms to censor
    and surveil their users in order to prevent copyright theft.
        But at the same time when putting those mechanisms in
    place, this comes back to the law enforcement issue that I was
    raising earlier, it also gives repressive regimes an extra
    excuse to surveil and censor and put liability on carriers to
    surveil and censor for political reasons as well. So we need to
    make sure that as we are seeking to protect legitimate business
    interests we are also not providing extra tools for repression
    because they are sort of dual use in that way. Because a lot of
    governments justify their censorship and surveillance with the
    excuse of child protection, law enforcement, and copyright
    protection.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. In fact, I would ask the gentleman if I
    could suggest unanimous consent that he have 1 additional
    minute and ask him if he would yield to me on this issue that
    he is raising.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
    actually hear stories that there are people who in the name of
    freedom of expression think that every potential protection of
    copyrights or patents or trademarks that is suggested could
    theoretically and potentially, if taken too far, impinge on
    first amendment rights and therefore oppose any single and
    every single effort to protect intellectual property. Have you
    ever come across such people?
        Ms. Mackinnon. All the time.
        Chairman Berman. Okay.
        Ms. Mackinnon. I do not count myself among those people.
        Chairman Berman. Good.
        Ms. Mackinnon. I believe we need to find the right balance.
    I believe there need to be solutions, we just need to be
    mindful in grabbing at solutions that we are thinking about the
    larger context and how some solutions can be misused.
        Chairman Berman. They can. Thank you. And just, I will take
    that last 5 seconds. Ms. Wong, could you do me a favor and take
    a look in the context of Mr. Boozman's questions about the
    misappropriation of Rosetta Stone's trademark on the Google
    process? People have come to us about that, and this is a good
    place to do my case work.
        Ms. Wong. I don't have the specific background on it, but I
    am happy to come back to you.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again
    to the esteemed panel. I had to step out for a while so if I
    repeat something that may have been touched on, I apologize,
    but I just wanted to get back to that issue of piracy of
    intellectual property and what it costs America and how we can
    deal with it. Ms. Wong, maybe you could start. How does Google
    approach this, whether it is films or music and people who use
    Google to, either in this country or abroad, to pirate
    intellectual material, what is Google's thoughts on it and what
    is the strategy for dealing with it both here and abroad?
        Ms. Wong. So as a technology company and one with a good
    deal of important software for us, we absolutely believe in the
    protection of intellectual property, and we think there is a
    significant legal infrastructure for protecting intellectual
    property which we think is appropriate. To Ms. MacKinnon's
    statement earlier though, we also believe that there has to be
    a balance. And so part of our reason for being here at this
    meeting is to talk about the lack of a similar infrastructure
    for platforms for free expression, because we think that that
    is actually the area where in the past the legislatures have
    not paid as much attention. We do believe in the protection of
    intellectual property. We also believe in the balance that
    permits a continuing and vibrant platform for free expression.
        Mr. McMahon. So how will you balance that in China and
    particular where, you know, estimates are, and I know
    Congressman Sherman talked about this, but, you know, 82
    percent of all software products purchased in China were
    obtained through intellectual property piracy, many through the
    Internet of course and through using the Google platform to do
    it. How can you help us protect that American interest, that
    vital American interest?
        Ms. Wong. Yeah, well this is one of those areas where
    partnership with our Government is obviously really important.
    Our experience in China was interesting because we were
    competing with their homegrown search engine, Baidu, which owes
    a great deal of its popularity to the free download of licensed
    music. We recently offered, or last year I guess, started doing
    our own music download service all with licensed music, and
    tried to set an example in that way that users we thought would
    appreciate, you know, legitimate licensed music. That has not
    yet proven to help us very much in that market, but it is one
    of the ways that we were trying to make headway in China.
        Mr. McMahon. Can you do more and can we do more?
        Ms. Wong. I think that there probably is room for
    continuing to look at intellectual property laws as we apply
    them in China. I know there are ongoing conversations now in
    terms of the trade agreements that we are dealing with, and we
    would be happy to give you more thoughts on that following the
    hearing.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you. Mr. Holleyman, would you want to?
        Mr. Holleyman. Thank you, Mr. McMahon. I will add to that.
    Certainly in a country like China we see $6.7 billion in losses
    due to piracy, a significant portion of that loss is to U.S.
    software companies but also to Chinese software companies and
    to the channel. What I think in all of this though that we need
    to consider is that the impact of this goes far beyond any
    individual working in a software- or a copyright-based company
    or even their partners. In an area like software, what we find
    is that most of the software piracy in China is not necessarily
    from a counterfeit copies and not necessarily from downloaded
    copies of software.
        For software, which is the largest copyright industry in
    the world, is when an otherwise legitimate business may have
    one or two legal copies but they have duplicated it for 50 or
    100 or 1,000 or 2,000 workers. And when that happens, they are
    getting the productivity benefits for their company, they are
    selling their products at a cheaper price than people in your
    districts. And so we have to look at this as something that is
    first and foremost hurting U.S. companies because we are the
    leaders in producing copyright works. But it is displacing
    legitimate sales by U.S. companies in a whole host of
    industries, and we need to look at that.
        Mr. McMahon. So it affects our very competitiveness, the
    competitiveness of the American companies.
        Mr. Holleyman. Absolutely, far beyond any company that sees
    themselves as an intellectual property-based company.
        Mr. McMahon. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman has yielded back the
    remainder of his time. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Manzullo, ranking member on the Asia, the Pacific and the
    Global Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was tied up in
    other meetings. I caught portions of the testimony. My question
    here is to Ms. Wong. I remember my staff, Nien Su, who was
    fluent in Chinese, and typed in Tiananmen Square on Google.cn,
    and he was led to an official Chinese site treating it I think
    as a travel opportunity, tourist opportunity. And then he typed
    on Google.com Tiananmen Square and got a very robust history of
    everything that happened there. My question to you is, I know
    you are in negotiations on censorship, but allowing a little
    bit of censorship is allowing all of censorship. And my
    question to you is, what if the Chinese say, ``That is it, we
    are not going to change our policies''; what is Google going to
    do?
        Ms. Wong. Thank you, Congressman, that is a very good
    question. So let me be really clear. Google is firm in its
    decision that it will stop censoring for China our search
    results, and we are working as quickly as possible toward that
    end. The fact of the matter is that we have hundreds of
    employees on the ground, some of whom are very dear colleagues
    of mine, and we do not underestimate the seriousness or the
    sensitivity of the decision that we have made. So we will stop
    censoring on our .cn property, the results, but we want to do
    it in an appropriate and a responsible way. There is----
        Mr. Manzullo. What if China says, ``You continue, we'll
    continue to censor or you are out''?
        Ms. Wong. We are not going to change our decision on
    stopping to censor, not censoring results anymore. So if the
    option is that we will need to both shutter our .cn property
    and leave the country, we are prepared to do that.
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman yields back the balance of
    his time. And the gentleman from Missouri, chairman of the
    International Organizations, Human Rights, deg. and
    Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing on how we can transform our cyberspace
    policy to advance democracy, security, and trade. First I would
    like to turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    adopted in 1948 under the Truman administration. Article 19
    says, ``Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and
    expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions
    without interference and to seek, receive, and impart
    information and ideas through any media regardless of
    frontiers.''
        I think that is a great principle, and certainly the
    Internet was not around when that concept was really adopted,
    but certainly it applies here today. And I first want to ask
    about market share in China. I understand Google's market share
    has grown from about 15 percent in '06 to about 31 percent
    today, meanwhile Baidu has increased its market share from
    about 47 percent over the same time period up to 64 percent
    today. If Google leaves, and Baidu would be handed an effective
    monopoly, can you make an economic argument why this is not in
    China's national interest? And let me direct that to Ms. Wong.
        Ms. Wong. Well, I think it clearly is in China's economic
    interest. As I understand it, after we made our announcement
    that we would no longer be censoring search results Baidu's
    stock shot right up, and they are a Nasdaq listed company that
    does quite well obviously based on their market share. Having
    said that, consistent with our principles as a company, we felt
    that we could no longer continue to operate under the
    regulations in China.
        Mr. Carnahan. And I applaud your company's principled
    decision. And let me ask next, to what extent would this
    decision, if you do leave, stifle competition and innovation?
    How would such a decision limit the ability of other U.S.
    businesses to operate and advertise in China? And let me ask
    Mr. Holleyman about that.
        Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Carnahan, thank you for the question. I
    think it shows just how important it is that the U.S.
    Government take this on as an issue and ensure that U.S.
    companies can compete in various markets fairly and consistent
    with U.S. values. One of the challenges from the data I have
    seen is that Baidu is the third largest site for searches
    globally, behind Google and behind Yahoo and above Microsoft.
    And so one of the challenges will become as we will be doubling
    the number of Internet users, does a platform like Baidu become
    a prominent platform not just in China but, as they have
    indicated, on a global basis?
        And so I would submit that it is more important and it is
    important for the U.S. Government to make sure that companies
    like Google and Yahoo and Microsoft and others can do business
    in a market like China so that as that next generation of
    Internet is built out it will continue to be based on U.S.
    companies rather than ceding that next generation to companies
    like Baidu and others who may not have the same commitments
    that U.S. companies do.
        Mr. Carnahan. Great. Any others on the panel want to
    comment on that? Ms. MacKinnon?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Well certainly, you know, China has short
    term interests and long term interests as well, and there are
    many people in China who are not necessarily members of the
    government who argue that in the long run China is really
    hurting itself by censoring, by stifling information, and that
    China's long term competitiveness and innovation will be best
    served by being open. So that there are certainly those who are
    arguing that as well within China, and whatever we can do to
    help amplify that point of view and show that actually there
    are multiple points of view in China about what best serves
    their interests, I think would be helpful.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. And
    the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And thank you to all of
    the panelists for being here today. I had a bill on the floor,
    so forgive me for being a little late. It passed unanimously, I
    am glad to say.
        Chairman Berman. We want to complement you for your
    exquisite timing.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Iran and
    China are just two prominent examples of countries that have
    been moving to control or censor, frankly speech, free speech
    over the Internet. Anyone on the panel, but what role do you
    see the private sector taking with regard to freedom of
    expression overseas? And what role should the private sector
    take with respect to that set of issues?
        Ms. Wong. Well I will start but maybe Rebecca will want to
    jump in too. I think that the private sector has made a really
    great step by farming the Global Network Initiative, which is a
    group of not just companies but also human rights
    organizations, academics, and socially responsible investors.
    And I think that having that body both as an area for shared
    learnings as well as having a unified voice on censorship
    issues around the world is really important. One of the things
    that we observed in the last few years is that when we went
    into a country we would be told by government regulators there,
    hey the guys down the street are doing this, you need to do it
    too.
        Having a coalition of companies that are in agreement with
    each other about our principles, and also being able to push
    back together against a government, is extraordinarily
    important. Having said that, the importance of having strong
    leadership in our Government to back us up when we make those
    decisions to open up channels for communication so that we can
    have reasonable conversations about those things is
    extraordinarily important.
        Mr. Connolly. Yeah, I think that is a really good point.
        Ms. Mackinnon. And just to back that up, that is absolutely
    true. It took a generation for the private sector to recognize
    that it had responsibilities in terms of labor practices. It
    took another generation for the private sector to recognize its
    environmental responsibilities, and now it is time for the
    entire ICT sector, information communications and technology
    sector, to recognize its responsibilities as regard free
    expression and human rights.
        And at the moment there are a few leading companies who
    have really taken the first step, and it is a learning process
    now through the Global Network Initiative and through the
    efforts of this committee and others in Congress, to really
    help the private sector step up to its responsibilities and
    figure out how to do that and still be competitive. Because I
    don't think it is always a binary choice, engage or get out.
        I think the lessons of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo over
    the past few years since 2006 and the first hearings has been
    that it is often about how you engage, that you can make
    specific choices. As Mr. Smith pointed out, in Vietnam, Yahoo,
    having learned its lessons in China when it didn't think
    through how it was going to implement certain services, they
    thought through in Vietnam, how do we provide blogging services
    without exposing user data to the police in Vietnam? And so it
    is about helping companies be more thoughtful about their
    responsibilities while still doing business.
        Mr. Connolly. Good point. And I know the two gentlemen want
    to respond as well, and maybe in your response I would also
    like to know how you think the Global Network Initiative might
    play a role in this as well. Dr. Wortzel?
        Mr. Wortzel. Well, I have followed the Global Network
    Initiative on the commission, on the China Commission. I think
    that they are moving along well. I encourage Congress to
    continue to monitor their progress on what they hope to
    achieve. But I want to use bribery as kind of an analogy. You
    know, I don't have this great faith that the private sector is
    always going to behave well. We have got laws that stop U.S.
    companies from bribing foreign officials. So I think that, you
    know, you really do need to look at forms of legislation that
    may, if things like the Global Network Initiative don't catch
    on and work, may restrict what they can do and force them to
    adhere to our values. And I will just end it at that.
        Mr. Connolly. You have got the final word, Mr. Holleyman.
        Mr. Holleyman. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I certainly agree
    with the sentiments of the other panelists, and we applaud the
    effort of the Secretariate and the members of the Global
    Network Initiative to look at potential ways of expanding that
    beyond the original ISP community with whom it was intended to
    more companies. And certainly I can't commit any particular
    company to participating in that, but I know that we have many
    members who are engaged in part of the work plan and discussion
    about potential participation as it is broadened.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank you all. My time is up. I look
    forward to this as a continuing dialogue. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you. And the gentleman's time is
    expired. And, if you don't mind having a slightly later than
    usual lunch, I would like to open up for a few more questions.
    No one has screamed, so I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Wortzel, a specific and a more general question. The
    specific question: You talk about our greatest vulnerability
    coming from China and that we have no arms control agreement
    with China. What about a cyber-control agreement, a bilateral
    protocol regulating both countries' behavior in cyberspace?
    There has been some discussion of this. I would be curious
    about your comments.
        The more general question: It is hard to articulate, but
    somewhere--there have been times when people in the American
    Government have been quite sanctimonious about attacking what
    other governments are doing and seeking to ban them, which if
    literally applied to our own conduct might affect us. Is there
    a line here that we need to, things that we do because we think
    they are--there are probably limitations on what we can talk
    about here--but things that we do because we think they are
    essential to our national security interest? And of course we
    are right and the others aren't, but it is harder to sell that
    internationally.
        Mr. Wortzel. Well, I wouldn't want to touch on the
    operations of the cyber-commands inside the U.S. military here,
    but I think you have hit on a very important point. We have a
    long history, the United States has a long history of arms
    control discussions and agreements with the Soviet Union that
    has led both to tacit acceptance of certain rules of behavior
    and formal treaties. Our attempts to do the same with the
    People's Republic of China have pretty well failed. And I have
    been involved with those directly since 1986.
        They won't talk to us about incidents at sea seriously, we
    had a treaty with the Russians. They won't talk and sit down
    formally in arms control and nuclear strategy negotiations as a
    confidence building measure. So even though the Russians today
    are beginning to talk to the United States about cyber, the
    Chinese have not reached the point of doing that. But your
    question is an extremely important one because I think what we
    have to do is focus on strategies to bring them in, track 2
    discussions in academia.
        Ensuring that there are international conferences that
    focus on things like the laws of war and how cyber warfare
    affects international warfare that they can attend. I think
    that our war colleges should be encouraging legal papers on
    these subjects, there are very few out there. And you are going
    to find Chinese responding to these. So gradually you begin to
    build up a body of almost common law on what constitutes an act
    of war, what activities are permissible. And remember that the
    laws of war were essentially written sometime between the end
    of World War I and mostly the end of World War II. So there is
    nothing in there about space warfare and the cyber age. We do
    need to address that.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. Mr. Holleyman?
        Mr. Holleyman. Let me add one quick point to that, sort of
    going beyond it. When the President announced the results of
    the Cyberspace Policy Review, it was a significant undertaking
    for the first U.S. President to talk about cyberspace policy
    ever, reflective of the times. But I will say, while we greeted
    this with great support, probably the least well-developed
    prong of that plan relates to international, and to the
    international framework, the international cooperation, what
    the U.S. is trying to seek from our allies.
        There is a great intent, there is work being done, but
    looking at the auspices of this committee, I think one of the
    great contributions you can make is to ensure that there is the
    support, there is the attention, and there is the participation
    to make sure that that international prong of Cyberspace Policy
    Review is at least as robust as the domestic, because we don't
    have domestic security without having it internationally.
        Chairman Berman. Okay. I have a couple more questions. Mr.
    Smith, should I just give myself another 2 minutes and we will
    do the same for you and Mr. Connolly and then deg.?
    Okay. This issue of engaging with these countries that I would
    designate as Internet repressive, or however you would describe
    it, or removing ourselves completely--there have been articles
    about the ability to subvert the firewalls that these
    governments impose. Is there a particular value here to be in
    the country promoting, sort of knowing that there are ways to
    overcome those government firewalls that is lessened if you
    simply extricate yourself from that country? In the end, is
    there an argument to be made that you can get more information
    and encourage more communications by staying and hoping that
    those firewalls can be pierced than by just pulling out
    completely, or can you do it all from internationally just as
    easily and therefore you don't need to stay? Ms. MacKinnon?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I think there certainly is an argument, and
    that is why Google went into China initially after much soul
    searching, and why many people in China including dissidents
    and activists who I know are worried that Google might pull
    out, because they are afraid that then the firewall is going to
    come down on all Google services and that will make it harder
    for people to have independent conversations and gain outside
    knowledge.
        So there is very much a strong argument, and again why it
    is important to think about not just the binary engage or
    disengage but how you go about engaging, because there is great
    benefit to being there on the ground and to helping people
    access information. And also because blocking isn't the only
    part of censorship or the only barrier to free expression. You
    have removals, you have surveillance and attacks and all kinds
    of things, which makes it all the harder if you are on the
    outside.
        Ms. Wong. If I could just amplify?
        Chairman Berman. Well, yes.
        Ms. Wong. So our experience prior to going into China and
    offering a localized domain in 2006 is that we were being
    regularly blocked in China, wholesale. Probably 10 percent of
    the time, and much of the time even then we were much slower
    because of the latency of being outside of the country. That
    was the initial reason for going into China. We found that when
    we were there we were not blocked as frequently, we found that
    we were able to do really innovative things, like we were the
    first company to start displaying when we had removed search
    results because of government requirements that we let users
    know, and that actually has now become an industry standard in
    China and we think that is good for the transparency to the
    country.
        I don't want to underplay what a difficult decision it has
    been that we may not be able to continue to provide search
    results in China from the .cn property. We think we did a lot
    of good there. There was a study by the journal Nature recently
    where they surveyed scientists in China, and 80 percent of them
    use Google for their academic research because we are more
    comprehensive than the local players. But having said that and
    in doing the evaluation, we actually just felt that we couldn't
    continue to do what seems to be a trajectory of increasing
    political censorship.
        Chairman Berman. All right. Can I try and squeeze in one
    more, guys? Okay. Mr. Holleyman talked about these discussions
    about expanding GNI, and I am curious to what extent, and I
    guess, Ms. MacKinnon, you are directly involved, you are I
    guess one of the academic participants in that process. To what
    extent do you see the prospect for that kind of expansion, to
    go beyond just the ISPs and bring others who have software and
    hardware products into this initiative?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I think the prospects are strong if the
    other technology companies make efforts.
        Chairman Berman. Well, do you see a way in which Congress
    could incentivize those companies as they go back and forth on
    this issue to tip in favor of joining?
        Ms. Mackinnon. Certainly. I mean different members of the
    GNI might have different public views on this, but I do think
    that we wouldn't be where we are today if there hadn't been the
    threat of legislation in the first place, and so Congress
    certainly has a role to play there. And one of the objections
    or the excuses for not joining GNI by some companies is that,
    well it doesn't fit our business model.
        And our response is, look this is meant to be a flexible
    process, this is not meant to squeeze everybody into completely
    inappropriate frameworks. The point of this is to help
    companies, no matter what their business model is, no matter
    what their specific technology, do the right thing. And so our
    implementation guidelines and our governance charter and our
    assessment mechanisms can be adapted to anybody who is willing
    to engage substantively in joining, but they have to make the
    first step in engaging substantively and seriously on how they
    can join.
        Chairman Berman. You can have elasticity as to business
    models if they will come inside the tent, basically.
        Ms. Mackinnon. That is right.
        Chairman Berman. All right, I am going to yield back, but I
    do want to indicate that, from much of the testimony that I had
    a chance to read before the hearing and discussions, I have in
    mind some legislation. I want to work closely with Mr. Smith
    who has his own legislation to see if we can come up with
    something that invests our Government in playing the role they
    should be playing and that I think the Secretary, by her
    speech, indicated a willingness to play in getting it on a
    government-to-government basis, incentivizing people to join,
    putting some reasonable kinds of obligations on the companies
    in terms of this very important issue. And so with that I will
    yield to the ranking member.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms.
    MacKinnon, I think your point about the threat of legislation
    causing or inspiring some additional action, the week we had
    the hearing, the day we had the hearing in February 2006, all
    of a sudden the State Department announced, and we welcomed it
    obviously, a task force to being looking at this issue and
    looking at it hopefully robustly. So I think your point was
    very well taken. All of your points were excellent. Thank you
    for your testimony and your work.
        Let me just, a couple of questions. Right before the
    Beijing Olympics, Congressman Frank Wolf and I traveled to
    Beijing on a human rights mission, we met with underground
    pastors of churches, most of whom were arrested. We had a
    prisoners list of 732 prisoners and very precise information
    about their alleged crimes, which was simply trying to live out
    the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Labor leaders, you
    know, there was a broad list. And we got nowhere with that.
        But we went to a cyber cafe while we were there, and we
    spent huge amount of time, both Mr. Wolf and I, accessing every
    site we could think of, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America,
    anything pertaining to the Dalai Lama. I even couldn't get my
    Web site. All of it was blocked. I don't know what they thought
    they were blocking when they were blocking my Web site but it
    was blocked.
        And even when I went to a very esoteric search time, and
    that was Manfred Nowak--the special rapporteur for torture who
    is a outstanding U.N. diplomat and, you know, he stands head
    and shoulders, I believe, above many in terms of the
    preciseness of his reporting--he had done a scathing report on
    torture in China. And when I typed in Manfred Nowak, what I got
    was his report on Guantanamo, not his report on Chinese
    systematic and pervasive use of torture.
        So my fear then, and as it always has been, is that a whole
    generation of Chinese are precluded accurate information, or at
    least information that they can make accurate or informed
    decisions about. And so the censoring issue, that and
    personally identifiable information are, you know, the two
    hallmarks of the Global Online Freedom Act, so I do hope we
    move forward on that and I would welcome any further thoughts
    you have on that.
        One concern that I have that I don't think we focus enough
    on, when I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, I held two hearings
    on China's increasingly poisoning role on Africa. The fact that
    when it comes to good governance, you know, they are net
    exporters to the U.S., our balance of trade was $228 billion
    over the last 12 months. They export other things too, and that
    is a repression model that is being scooped up by the likes of
    people in Sudan and other places, and other currently existing
    dictatorships are borrowing, Lukashenko in Belarus and others,
    the model that has been hand-given to them by the Chinese cyber
    police.
        So my question is, you know, I don't think we have the
    luxury of time. You know, dictatorships are repressing by the
    day, if you are in a torture chamber or in a gulag somewhat or
    the Lao Gai in China, you don't know if you are going to live
    to the next day. So time is of the essence, we don't have the
    luxury of delay. And so I would raise the issue, you know, we
    try to share best practices, the United States and other
    democracies. They are sharing worst practices, and they are
    doing it as aggressively as we could possibly imagine in Latin
    America, in Africa, and elsewhere. So I do think we need a
    hurry-up offense to make sure that we do much more and we do it
    effectively.
        So if you might want to comment on that, because I do
    think, you know, if you destroy the dissidents, the Lech
    Walessas of Poland and all the other great leaders, the Harry
    Wus, who thankfully at least he is alive and well here but
    exiled, where is democracy and human rights going to come from?
    You will cower the generation to remain silent and stay under
    the radar, and that goes for labor leaders and everything else.
    So these worst practices, I hope our businesses realize that
    they are not neutral in this. And it is unwitting I think.
        When we had the four members of the four biggest companies
    here, even though we were all upset about what was happening,
    my sense was, I think it is unwitting, I don't think they want
    this to happen, I think it is perhaps naivety and maybe some
    complicity, but who knows? The firewall busting technology, if
    you could speak to that. You know, we have appropriated $30
    million for that. Our friends in the Falun Gong and others feel
    that they have a useful product, maybe you want to speak to
    whether or not--I mean I see it as a sidebar issue. GOFA and
    those initiatives, government to government, should be the
    mainstream, but there are technologies that can evade and
    hopefully.
        And finally on the Cisco, which we didn't get time to
    answer before, their, you know, Police Net and the kind of
    technology that Cisco has transferred not just to the police
    but also to the military is extraordinarily effective in making
    sure that everyone walks in lockstep with a dictatorship or
    else. So if you could speak to those issues I would appreciate
    it. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a letter
    from Google, and I thank them again for endorsing GOFA, from
    eleven NGOs, including Amnesty International, Reporters Without
    Borders, a list of eleven, and Freedom House, be made a part of
    the record.
        Chairman Berman. We will, subject to reviewing it to see if
    there are any terms that we can't include. No--it will be
    included for the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]Smith
    FTR deg.

        Ms. Mackinnon. Well, just, I think you raised a lot of
    really good points. And I was actually a journalist working for
    CNN in the '90s when the Internet arrived in China, and we were
    all very naive, I think, in thinking that, well there is no way
    that an authoritarian government can survive the Internet.
    Well, I think China is absolutely the poster child for how
    authoritarianism does survive the Internet, and that this is a
    model that many regimes are copying. And Chinese networking
    companies like Hyawei and ZTE are doing very good business in
    African and Middle Eastern countries as well.
        And so that is one thing, and I remember in the 2006
    hearing some of the companies basically were saying things
    like, well as long as we provide the Internet in China,
    ultimately in the long run that will do everybody more good, so
    in the short run there are some consequences but, you know,
    that is just short run, in the long run we are going to be
    bringing freedom. And I think what we have learned over the
    last few years is that it is not that simple, and that the so
    called collateral damage immediately does matter and needs to
    be taken seriously, and that companies can be providing
    Internet access yet at the same time enabling
    authoritarianism's survival in the Internet age and helping to
    raise this whole generation of people who don't know what they
    don't know. And so that is very serious.
        And as you say about Cisco, I have had conversations with
    them and they say, well we are not doing anything illegal, you
    know, we are selling to police forces like we sell to law
    enforcement all over the world. And this is a problem not just
    with Cisco but there are a number of American companies selling
    biometric technologies that are also being used for law
    enforcement. And to also just speak very quickly to Mr.
    Holleyman's point about the next generation Internet and the
    need for American companies to be at the forefront of that,
    well China and many other countries also want to be at the
    forefront of building the next generation of the Internet,
    which is going to be much more mobile, ``Internet of things''
    and so on.
        And we need to make sure that our companies are not
    enabling and contributing to a next generation Internet that
    does not allow anonymity, that does not allow for privacy and
    makes dissent even more difficult than it is becoming today. So
    this is all the more reason why we need to make sure that
    companies across a broad spectrum of technology applications
    and business models are all mindful of what they are doing. And
    then the filtering technology.
        Yes, I know a lot of people in China who are using a range
    of different tools to get around censorship, and this is
    certainly something that deserves continued support. There is a
    challenge that I find that actually many Chinese people, many
    Chinese Internet users, even though they are aware of these
    tools, aren't using them. So there is a whole other range of
    issues about education and community building around these
    tools. And also the fact that again Internet blocking isn't the
    whole story with censorship. On the Chinese language Internet a
    lot of content is just being removed, and so that circumvention
    tools won't help you with that if the content has been taken
    down or if a site has been hacked, and the self-censorship that
    takes place because of surveillance and so on. So we need a
    whole range of different tactics along with circumvention to
    help people conduct free and open conversations without fear.
        Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Smith, I will just comment to Ms.
    MacKinnon's comment about the next generation Internet. I mean
    one of the--looking at the title of this hearing, how does
    cyber policy address issues of democracy, security, trade, as
    we build to a next generation Internet we will definitely be
    better as a country if the backbone of that is based on U.S.
    companies. And we will be more secure, there will be more
    democratization in the world, and we will have greater economic
    security.
        What we need to do is make sure that we are using the most
    vigorous abilities of the U.S. Government to make these
    government-to-government issues to really drive this
    discussion, and then also to work against things that would
    make it difficult or impossible for U.S. companies in IT to
    remain in markets. Because as we move to a marketplace for the
    Internet that will be dramatically larger than it is today, it
    would not be in the U.S. foreign policy interest for the
    platform of that Internet to be based on companies who had
    their genesis and origin in countries that had restrictive
    policies.
        Mr. Smith. If I could just one 5-second question? Harry Wu
    said there were 35,000 cyber police, and that was an estimation
    in 2006. Do any of you have the number of how many police are
    deployed to that operation?
        Ms. Mackinnon. I don't have a very reliable number. It has
    become very difficult to quantify because every police
    department, every kind of military division and so on has
    people who are involved with Internet, but also a lot of
    policing of the Internet is actually basically outsourced to
    private companies, so it is not police doing it but Baidu and
    many other Chinese companies have entire departments of people
    whose job it is to monitor and censor content. And so a lot of
    it is not actually being done by police, it is being done by
    the private sector.
        Mr. Wortzel. I agree with Ms. MacKinnon. I don't think you
    are going to get a reliable figure today. Cyber militias have
    been created, reserve public security people are brought in
    from universities and businesses, and it is outsourced.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Virginia will have the
    last question.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to
    piracy, what is the obligation of search engines like Google
    and what is the obligation of governments in protecting content
    providers against piracy and especially links to piratical
    sights?
        Ms. Wong. So Google's policy in terms of search starts with
    the notion of we want to have the most comprehensive index
    possible. When you type in a search we want to deliver
    something that is relevant for you. However, when we become
    aware of content that is illegal, we do remove those from the
    search engine and have a process for doing that. I think that
    that is part of being responsible in terms of showing users as
    much information as possible but also respecting the rights of
    intellectual property owners.
        Mr. Connolly. But what I am hearing you say, Ms. Wong, is
    Google acknowledges it has some responsibility when you know a
    site is illegally piratical and you are putting a content
    provider at risk linking to that site, you are going to do
    something about maybe removing that site, or that link.
        Ms. Wong. That is right. It is actually governed by a law
    passed by this body many years ago, the Digital Millennium
    Copyright Act. We have a process for receiving claims by the
    intellectual property holder and to process those claims to
    remove it upon notice. Under that process then for search
    engines they are taken out of index.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Holleyman?
        Mr. Holleyman. We think there needs to be a workable
    mechanism. We do believe certainly that the U.S. foundation--
    the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--was a solid foundation.
    We also think that there need to be obligations that companies
    assume on their own where there are repeat instances of piracy
    that has been identified, whether they are not simply
    responding to a complaint from a copyright holder but they are
    also taking affirmative steps to take down repeat infringers
    and to prohibit means that would monetize activity associated
    with piracy.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. Well now that you have opened up that
    issue, I just want to, I just feel compelled to follow up a
    little bit here. Actually, Ms. MacKinnon, your testimony
    originally, your first testimony you submitted before the snow
    week, had some recommendations regarding intermediary
    liability. You spoke to that in your testimony today but you
    didn't include that in your conclusions. But if, let us just
    talk hypothetically.
        Ms. Wong, you have mentioned notice and takedown provisions
    of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--but if you could have
    a pretty darn flawless kind of filter to separate what Mr.
    Connolly has talked about, or add to that child pornography or
    other things, from other kinds of content, what is wrong with
    intermediary liability in that situation? In places
    particularly where there is an activity that makes you
    something more than just a sort of automatic conduit? Having
    changed the nature of this hearing.
        Ms. Wong. I think we have seen the dangers of intermediary
    liability, most recently in a case in Italy that was brought
    against three of our executives for the alleged violation of
    invasion of privacy under Italian law.
        Chairman Berman. We talked about that, right.
        Ms. Wong. In which three of our executives were criminally
    convicted for a video that was uploaded to YouTube. Although,
    when we got notice from law enforcement that that video
    existed, it was a cyber bullying video that violated our
    policies, we took it down within hours. However, our three
    executives have been convicted in an Italian court.
        What that means for a service, of any platform service but
    for YouTube, where users upload 20 hours of video every minute,
    the concept that you would prescreen or else be subject to
    liability means that that platform cannot exist with the
    robustness that has proven to provide video footage of the
    protests in Iran, of in Burma. There has to be a way to
    continue to permit the robustness of that platform. And a
    prescreening requirement or intermediary liability for user
    content I think would dampen that.
        Chairman Berman. That was not a case where you were sort of
    promoting and advertising linking to this video, right? I mean
    this was not, you were not trying to commercially exploit the
    placement of that particular video.
        Ms. Wong. Right.
        Chairman Berman. What if part of the intermediary liability
    constrained it only to areas where there was an intermediary's
    action to essentially promote links?
        Ms. Wong. Which means the intermediary or the platform has
    somehow appropriated or reviewed and decided to commercially
    use that information.
        Chairman Berman. Yes.
        Ms. Wong. I think that that is different. We have actually
    tried to----
        Chairman Berman. Okay, now we have narrowed this down. All
    right.
        Ms. Wong. I think that we have tried to find a thread which
    actually partners with the content holders. So for example on
    YouTube we have a content ID process where, we are not in a
    position to know who that content owner is or what their rights
    in it might be, but the content holders can identify it for
    themselves and make a decision to have it monetized, to have
    claimed or to have it taken down.
        Chairman Berman. That is right. All right, look, thank you
    all very much for coming. It has been a very valuable hearing.
    I would like to get, if you would be willing to take the time,
    some more specific suggestions on these Iran issues of trying
    to get out of our export prohibitions the kinds of things that
    could help there for our legislation. We are in a situation
    where we could make great use of that information. And with
    that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record